Central Information Commission
Ravi Kumar vs Edcil (India) Limited on 14 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/EDCIL/C/2017/144096-BJ
Mr. Ravi Kumar,
.... िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
EdCIL (India) Ltd., Corporate Office,
EdCIL House, 18A, Sector- 16A,
Noida 201301
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.08.2018
Date of Decision : 14.08.2018
Date of RTI application 31.03.2017
CPIO's response 08.06.2017
Date of the First Appeal 02.06.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Complaint by the Commission 29.06.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points relating to the interviews conducted for the post of consultant (Planning), Senior Consultant- Appraisal and Supervision and Senior Consultant- Procurement and Disbursal in the month of January 2017, copy of notings showing the marks awarded by the members of interview panel to the candidates called for interview, criteria, if any, maintained for award of marks, list of candidates interviewed/ attended and marks secured by them against the post and issues related thereto. The CPIO vide letter dated 08.06.2017, provided a point wise reply. Dissatisfied by the response, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA's response is not on the record of the Commission.Page 1 of 3
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Ravi Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar Mathur, DGM & CPIO, EDCIL;
The Complainant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that criteria adopted for award of marks in interview was not disclosed. In its reply, the Respondent explained that a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee was already furnished to the Complainant which was acknowledged by him. In its written submission dated 13.08.2018, it was categorically stated that no such noting / document showing the marks secured by the candidate / marks awarded by the Members of Interview Panel was available on their record. Furthermore, it was clarified that the said selection work was carried out by them on behalf of MHRD and that the Member of MHRD headed the panel of the Selection Committee. The final results were handed over to the MHRD for further necessary action.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had 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, Page 2 of 3 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 information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the 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."
DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 14.08.2018
Page 3 of 3