Central Information Commission
Irshad Ahmad Wani vs Central Institute Of Temperate ... on 11 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा /Second Appeal No. CIC/CIOTH/A/2025/605023
Irshad Ahmad Wani ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture (ICAR)
Srinagar ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 11/03/2026
Date of Decision : 11/03/2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Ashutosh Chaturvedi
Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:
RTI application filed on 27/10/2024
CPIO replied on 28/11/2024
First appeal filed on 29/11/2024
FAA's order dated 30/12/2024
Second Appeal dated 30/01/2025
Information sought:
The appellant has filed RTI application dated 27/10/2024 seeking the following information:
"Kindly provide me the following details of the any recruitment conducted by CITH ICAR in year 1997When the written test and interview of other posts like lower division clerk Junior clerk Supporting Staff Grade one etc. was conducted Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/CIOTH/A/2025/605023 Page 1 of 4 in Srinagar then why the recruitment of T II 3 was conducted at Abohar regional station of CIPHET and what was the reasons behind that Whether any distant or near relative of any officer had applied for the post of T II 3 Computer during 1997 recruitment and what kind of measures was taken in case of applicant being a relative of the employee to ensure fair and error free selection The application form along the declaration of T II 3 Computer applicant selected during 1997 may please be provided to me under RTI to see whether he/she had disclosed about his relationship with the appointing authority or not Also provide me the copy of the declaration from the officer that any of his/her relative by blood or distant is applying for the vacancy advertised by the institute in case of applicant being a relative of appointing authority whether the matter was brought into the notice of higher ups by him to detach him from the selection process The screening list of T II 3 Computer duly recommended and signed by screening committee and approved by competent authority may be provided to me under RTIA copy of offer of appointment served to T II 3 Computer during 1997 recruitment may be provided to me under RTI."
2. The CPIO has furnished a reply to the appellant dated 28/11/2024 stated as under:
"The applicant is seeking answers to his questions, which does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Refer to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008) wherein it was held as follows:
"The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
In view of the above ratio, the Commission observes that at the outset it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions."
3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant filed the First Appeal with the first Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 30/12/2024 stated as under:
Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/CIOTH/A/2025/605023 Page 2 of 4"This has reference to your appeal vide subject communication. In this connection, I have perused your appeal viz-a-viz reply of CPIO and provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. I agree with the reply of the CPIO for rejecting your RTI application on grounds of definition of "Information as per section 2(f) of RTI Act". Therefore, your appeal to seek the specified information is rejected. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
4. Challenging the decision of the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant filed the Instant Second Appeal on 30/01/2025.
5. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present on VC Respondent: Dr. Mohammad Abbas Shah CPIO Admin/ Scientist participated in the hearing on VC The Appellant reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that the information sought has not been provided. The Respondent submits that the applicant is seeking answers to his questions, which does not fall within the definition of information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Further apprises the bench that the documents sought has been weeded out.
DECISION In the light of the facts of the case, the material on record and the submission made by the Respondent during hearing, the commission observes that point wise reply of the RTI Application is not furnished by the Respondent. Therefore, Commission directs the Respondent to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised point wise reply, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission within 7 days thereafter.
In case relevant information, as sought in the instant RTI Application, pertains to some other Branch/Department, then the CPIO should procure and provide the same to the Appellant. In doing so, CPIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the appellant and same must be redacted as per section 10 of the RTI Act. No further action lies.
The Appeal stands disposed of Sd/-
Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशुतोष चतुवदी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/ Date: 11.03.2026 Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/CIOTH/A/2025/605023 Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Address of the Parties:
1. CPIO ICAR Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, K D Farm, Old Air Field, PO Rangreth 190007 Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir
2. Irshad Ahmad Wani Second Appeal/ Complaint No. CIC/CIOTH/A/2025/605023 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)