Central Information Commission
Amal Kumar Mazumdar vs Department Of Posts on 28 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/124431
Amal Kumar Mazumdar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Department of Posts,
Kolkata ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 03.04.2024 FA : 20.06.2024 SA : 26.07.2024
CPIO : 29.04.2024 FAO : 09.07.2024 Hearing : 27.08.2025
Date of Decision: 27.08.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.04.2024 seeking information as under:
"That let me know what is the present status or position of the result of verifications towards appointment of Miss Sumitra Purti for which I am representing. How much time or day will be incurred towards her appointment? My client is in dark, your needful steps regarding her recruitment can illuminate the hope of light of proper relief. Is there any ground which debarred her from getting service? Kindly provide the information what are sought for."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 1 of 5"On examination of the case, the SSPOs, South Hooghly Division was asked to submit compliance on certain points returning the submitted document vide RO letter dated 07/10/2021."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2024. The FAA vide order dated 09.07.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 26.07.2024.
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Raju Singh, ASP & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Appellant reiterated the RTI queries and stated that his written contentions are already placed on record on 22.8.2025.
7. The Respondent also relied on their written submissions filed on 22.08.2025 stating as under:
"At the outset, it is submitted with due respect that the matter pertains to processing of compassionate appointment in relaxation of normal recruitment rules. Department of Posts has at all times acted in good faith and strictly in accordance with extant rules, guidelines, and instructions of the Directorate. There has been no intention to withhold information or cause delay.
It is submitted that Smt. Sujata Purti, Ex-PA, Serampore HO under South Hooghly Division expired on 08.06.2000 while posted at Serampore under South Hooghly Division and thereafter, her daughter namely Sumitra Purti, applied for employment in relaxation of normal rules of recruitment on 19.11.2020.
The SSPOs, South Hooghly Division, was directed to furnish compliance and return the submitted documents after due examination by RO vide letter dated 07.10.2021.Page 2 of 5
Meanwhile, Dte has issued order regarding Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) to be followed for giving appointment on compassionate grounds vide order no.17-1/2022- SPG-II Dated 23.03.2022 & 24.03.2022.
Further, appellant issued legal notices and reminder notices by Registered Post with A/D on 26.07.2023 and 30.08.2023 addressed to the Sr.Superintendent of Post offices, South. Hooghly Division, Serampore and ADPS-I, Kolkata.
On 11.09.2023, SSPOs South Hooghly Division has issued an order in favour of the appellant vide letter dated 11.09.2023 for resubmit the complete case afresh as per the Dte's communication no. 17-1/2022-SPG-II Dated 23.03.2022 & 24.03.2022.
No complete reply along with documents were received from the appellant till date at the O/o Sr. Supdt of Posts, South Hooghly Division for further course of action.
xxx Presently, the case has been further referred to the SP, North Hooghly Division (the sponsoring Division) for compliance and necessary action and submit fresh forms for submission under intimation to the applicant vide SSPOs South Hooghly Division letter no.B-19/Apttt/Relax/A.Purti dated at Serampore, the 17.03.2025.
The application of Ms. Sumitra Purti has not been rejected.
The case is under active examination as per the latest Directorate instructions.
All documents furnished by the applicant have been duly taken on record and further compliance has been sought from the sponsoring Division to ensure completeness of the proposal.
Information sought by the applicant has been supplied at every stage within the framework of RTI Act and service rules.
The delay, if any, is procedural in nature owing to repeated requirement of complete documentation and adherence to Directorate's revised guidelines."Page 3 of 5
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that considering the fact that the Appellant did not seek for any specific information as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, rather having interrogated the CPIO over the issue of the compassionate appointment, the Respondent office has facilitated the Appellant with the status of the action being taken, which is in consonance with the spirit of the RTI Act. The Appellant is advised to pursue the grievance before the appropriate forum. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:Page 4 of 5
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. Having observed as above, the Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 27.08.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO O/o. The Postmaster General, South Bengal Region, CPIO & ADPS-III, Department Of Posts, South Bengal Region, Kolkata-700012
2. Amal Kumar Mazumdar Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)