Central Information Commission
Mrk R Arya vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 7 January, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi110067
Decision No. CIC/CC//A/2014/003065/SB
Dated: 08.01.2016
Appellant : Shri K.R. Arya,
72/2, Ashok Mohalla,
Nangloi,
Delhi110 041.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer
Deptt. of Personnel & Training,
North Block,
New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 07.01.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2014
CPIO's reply : 22.07.2014
First Appeal filed on : 11.08.2014
FAA's order : 24.09.2014
Second Appeal filed on : 16.12.2014
ORDER
1. Shri K.R. Arya filed an application dated 29.05.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Personnel & Training seeking information on eight points regarding claim of S.Cs/STs in promotion in government services/posts under Article 335 of the Constitution of India, including (i) why are the claims of SCs/STs not taken into consideration while making appointments on promotions
(ii) what is the difference between the meaning of Word ' First Appointment' and 'Appointment after Promotion' and (iii) what is the difference between 'Claim' and 'Reservation' in Law as referred to in Article 335, 330 & 332 respectively.
2. The appellant filed second appeal dated 16.12.2014 before the Commission on the ground that the CPIO denied the information stating that to clarify or to interpret is beyond the scope of RTI and that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the reply of the CPIO adding that to define or to interpret, clarify or to confirm does not come under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant requested the Commission to provide the information sought since it is related to public interest.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri K.R. Arya and the respondent Shri Raju Saraswat, CPIO and Under Secretary, DOPT were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him in response to his RTI application.
5. The respondent submitted that factual information as available has already been provided to the appellant. The respondent further submitted that the information sought by the appellant was clarificatory in nature and the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
Decision:
6. Having heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the records, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide information in respect of point nos. 1, 5 and 6 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed.
8. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer