Central Information Commission
Madan Singh Boda vs Directorate Of Forest Education, ... on 23 September, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No.: CIC/DOFED/A/2022/127619
Madan Singh Boda ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Council of Forestry
Research and Education,
RTI Cell, P.O.- New Forest,
Dehradun -248006, Uttarakhand. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/09/2022
Date of Decision : 22/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on :10/03/2022
CPIO replied on :21/03/2022
First appeal filed on :21/04/2022
First Appellate Authority order :14/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated :01/05/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.03.2022 seeking the following information:
"xxxxxxxxxx 1 The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 10.03.2022 stating as follows -
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.03.2022. FAA's order dated 24.03.2022 held as under -
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of desired clarifications, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal. He further narrated his grievance regarding deprival of promotional benefit from the position of a Ranger Grade-I employee to the A.F.C. post, due to an anomaly in the interpretation of the averred order of the Council issued in the year 1995 on 9th January, by the Rajasthan State, despite fulfilling the essential criteria.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Dr Rajiv Pandey, Scientist- 'E' & CPIO present through video- conference.2
The CPIO while narrating the factual background in the matter apprised the Commission that the Appellant had pursued a two year certification training course as a ' Forest Ranger' from Rajasthan and has sought clarification whether on this basis , he could be awarded a degree of B.Sc. (Forestry) which is considered for promotion of candidates for the post of A.F.C. on the lines of the order issued by ICFRE in 1995 on 9th January for the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The CPIO further added that the Appellant has brought out that the averred order of ICFRE is not applicable/acceptable by the Respondent organization for the State of Rajasthan. In this regard, the Appellant has sought clarification/interpretation of the order dated 09.01.1995 of ICFRE, Dehradun for which factual clarification along with relevant available copy of the order has already been furnished to the Appellant. No additional information is available at their end.
Upon Commission's instance, the CPIO further facilitated a detailed discussion regarding the courses and functioning of the Respondent Public Authority. During discussion , the CPIO apprised that in fact , this order of 1995 was issued by ICFRE on receipt of a letter received from the Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir seeking clarification and that as a step further, they even had sent a copy of the RTI application to the 'Directorate of Forest Education' which is located in their premises and now takes care of this issue of awarding degrees. The plea was turned down on the pretext that it is an RTI issue and may be handled by ICFRE only. However, at the end, the CPIO agreed to take up the issue out of RTI context with the Directorate of Forest Education for necessary action so as to throw more light on this issue as there could more candidates seeking similar clarification.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on records finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information sought in the instant RTI Application as well as the reply of the CPIO thereon as the query raised by the Appellant does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for clarifications and interpretation to be drawn by the CPIO in reference to order dated 09.01.1995 of ICFRE, Dehradun as quoted in RTI Application; to that extent the reply provided by the CPIO is in line and with the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.3
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, his attention is also 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, provided 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], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any 4 information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"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) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding inaction of the Respondent Authority in responding to the non-granting him equivalent of B.S.c ( Forestry ) degree based on his two years certification training course as a ' Forest Ranger' from Rajasthan and non-consideration for promotion for the post of 5 A.F.C. on the lines of the order issued by ICFRE in 1995 on 9th January despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria is not amenable under the RTI Act. In this regard, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above, no further action is warranted in the matter.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue the matter through appropriate administrative mechanism.6
Lastly, in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO is advised to put a copy of this order before the Directorate of Forest Education to look into the matter and take appropriate steps for redressal of Appellant's grievance.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7