Central Information Commission
Partha Pratim Bhattacharya vs Union Public Service Commission on 23 June, 2023
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/UPSCM/A/2022/143840
Partha Pratim Bhattacharya ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Union Public Service
Commission, RTI Cell, Dholpur
House, Shahjahan Road, New
Delhi-110069. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08/05/2023
Date of Decision : 21/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11/05/2022
CPIO replied on : 07/06/2022 & 30/06/2022
First appeal filed on : 11/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 02/08/2022
2nd Appeal received on : 14/09/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.05.2022 seeking the following information:1
"Ref.1 F.No. 1/149(20)/2015-R-II/Roll No. 132;
2 Recruitment to 3 (three) post of Deputy Legislative Counsels (Gr.-III of India Legal Services) in the Legislative Department, M/o. Law and Justice;
3 Advt. No. 07/2016, Vacancy No. 16040703209;4. Your letter No. F.7/36(28)/2022-R.II dt. 07.06.2022.
With reference to the particulars mentioned above, I request you to provide me with the following information:
1.What is the case number in full, what is the present status/stage therein and who are/were the parties thereto, etc., as referred to in your response with reference to my queries under serial numbers 1 (One) and 3 (Three)?
Before which court, tribunal, etc., is it pending, or, wherefrom has it been disposed of?
2.Has there been any specific judgment, order or direction on the UPSC on the matters referred to above, to withhold declaration of the result against it (One) vacancy?
3. Whether there has been any direction, order, authority, or justification under law that enabled the UPSC to declare the results of 2 (Two) candidates and recommend their names for appointment but, to withhold the result of 1 (One) candidate, though the Common Interview was for selection against 3 (Three) posts?
Copies of the relevant file-notes, documents, etc., duly certified under signature and official seal of a UPSC official competent therefor.
The marks of the 2 (Two) recommended candidates, which were earlier published by UPSC.
4, The UPSC denied the information sought for under paragraph 4 (Four) of my Application sent on 11-May-2022, erroneously applying the, Judgment dt. 06-Aug- 2013 as mentioned in its letter dt. 07.06.2022 without noting that the cited judgment does not apply to my Application, because inter alia, unlike in the cited case, I DID NOT seek for any name, personal particulars or copies of certificates /documents, etc., of any other candidate. I requested to inform ONLY the marks scored by the other selected candidate on the basis of the selection process. The 2 question of fiduciary relationship, or the statutory protection as referred to in the said letter, do not arise here.
So. with reference.to my application sent on 11-May-2022. please me with provide the sought for information, namely,-
4. the marks obtained by the candidate who has qualified for recruitment against the Post for which the declaration of the result was withheld."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 30.06.2022 stating as under:
"Point No. 1 The SLP vide Diary No. 17435/2022 has been filed on behalf of UPSC on 31.05.2022 in Hon'ble Supreme Court against Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's order dated 01.04.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 10025/2020 filed by Ms. Renu Sinha Vs UPSC. The SLP has been filed but the same is yet to be listed for hearing before Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Point No. 2 & 3 Due to OA No. 3209/2016 filed by Ms. Renu Sinha in the Hon'ble ACT, PB, New Delhi and with the approval of the Hon'ble Chairman, UPSC result of 01 (UR) post of DLC (Gr-III) was not declared and the same was kept in sealed cover. Further, the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi vide its order dated 01.04.202 in WP(C) No. 10025/2020 filed by Ms. Renu Sinha Vs UPSC has directed the Commission to declare the results kept in sealed cover by the same has been challenged by UPSC by way of filing SLP in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Please find enclosed herewith a copy of the relevant notes portion.
Point No. 4 The information sought by you relates to third party information and as such the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the same is also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement dated 06.08.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6362/2013 filed by UPSC Vs Gourhari Kamila."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.07.2022. FAA's order, 02.08.2022, held as under:
"After having gone through the contents of RTI requests and the information shared by the CPIO, I am convinced that the information shared by the CPIO in respect of para 1 and 4, except para 2 & 3 of RTI application date 15th June, 2022, is in order. In so far as RTI appeal is concerned, it is informed that necessary information has already been provided to the Appellant by the CPIO offline on 07.06.2022 and 30.06.2022. The request for personal hearing has, therefore, no 3 merit for consideration. As far as pars 2 & 3 are concerned, the CPIO is directed to give admissible reply to the Appellant within 10 (ten) working days from receipt of this letter."
In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 11.08.2022 stating as under:-
"I am to refer to FAA & Joint Secretary (R-1)'s decision of even number dated 02.08.2022 (copy enclosed) in response to your First offline RTI Appeal dated 11.05.2022 and to furnish the requisite information in respect of the para 2 & 3 of your RTI application dated 15.06.2022 as directed by FAA & Joint Secretary (R-I):-
Point No. 2 & 3 The in sought is in the nature of seeking clarification or interrogatory or accusatory. The RTI Act does not cast on the Public Authority any obligation to answer queries, in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answer to the questions with prefixes, such as, why what, when and whether. Further, under the RTI Act, 2005, CPIO is required to furnish the information available on record and is not required to answer queries or furnish opinion based on interpretation of rules or procedures. You may only ask for specific information under the RTI Act, 2005 rather than questioning the action of public authority.
The marks of two recommended candidates, which were earlier published by UPSC are 65 (Ms. Sunita anand, Roll No.-205) and 55 (Sh. Gainilung Panmei, Roll No.242)."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference.
Respondent: Devendra Singh, US & CPIO; Rampal Singh, SO and Govind Sharma, ASO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant was heard at length and his detailed written submissions were also perused, the sum and substance of his arguments being- that "Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) do not protect/prohibit the declaration/communication of the result/marks of the candidate whoever selected on the basis of a selection process (without any further reference or disclosure as to their personal information or particulars), more so, when there has never been any restriction imposed by any 4 court, etc., or any other lawful restriction, in declaring the results, and when the results of the other 2 (Two) candidates selected on the basis of the same interview process for appointment against 2 (Two) of the 3 (Three) vacancies were declared way back in 2016."
The CPIO submitted that the permissible information has been already provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the Appellant is insisting on the disclosure of the marks obtained by third parties and the same stands duly exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Similarly, as for points 2 & 3 of the RTI Application, the Commission observes that the Appellant has not sought for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 5 as he has merely raised speculative queries seeking clarifications and deduction to be provided by the CPIO. 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. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(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;.."
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:
"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 6 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 Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of action in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 7 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8