Central Information Commission
Vibhuti Munjal vs Agricultural Scientists Recruitment ... on 23 May, 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/AGSRB/A/2022/650370
VIBHUTI MUNJAL ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Agricultural Scientists
Recruitment Board, RTI Cell,
Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan
Pusa-1, New Delhi-110012. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19/05/2023
Date of Decision : 19/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30/03/2022
CPIO replied on : 28/04/2022
First appeal filed on : 09/05/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 22/06/2022
Second Appeal dated : 14/09/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.03.2022 seeking the following information:
"W.r.t. your reply 7-77/2022/Rectt.Cell/RTI 138 dated 29.03.2022 in relation to RTI no. IAGRI/R/T/22/00049 dated 16.02.2022, the RTI applicant seeks following information:1
Pertaining to point no. 1 of your reply letter, please provide us with the guidelines issued by ASRB relevant to the time of T3 examination held on 17.07.2016.
Please also provide us the information of relevant clause based in the ASRB guidelines on basis of which the date of birth is taken to be a criterion for the selection of candidates in T3 examination held on 17.07.2016."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 28.04.2022 stating as under:
"The concerned guidelines contained in point no. 7 of letter no. 5(3)/2017- CC-II dated 29.06.2017 are reproduced as below:
The merit list in respect of your Institute may be prepared based on the actual live vacancies available, category-wise, scores obtained with reference to cut-off percentage for each category, functional group options of the applicant, etc. After verifying all the details furnished by the candidates in the original applications which are in the custody of the Institute. The Board regulates cases of tie as under
a) Date of birth with the older candidate placed higher.
b) Alphabetical order in which the first names of the candidates appeared."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.05.2022. FAA's order dated 22.06.2022, held as under:
"In continuation to your First Appeal No IAGRl/A/E/22/00010 dated 28/03/2022 and disposal of First Appeal vide order no. 7-76/2022/Rectt.Cell/RTI dated 07r0512022 and upon receiving no-objection from ASRB, copies of letter No. 5(3)/2017-CC-II dated 02.02.2018 and dated 13.03.2018 (Copy enclosed) are send for your information."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"The appellant has appeared in the technical assistance T-3 examination held on 17.07.2016. Indian agricultural research institute, New Delhi, conducted this examination. The results for the said examination was declared in two steps: firstly, the provisional list was published on IARI website and then the 2 final list was published (Reference documents: B & C). In the first list, the appellant's name is present in the revised reserve list under the unreserved (UR) category at serial no. 15(Vibhuti Munjal, 070101814). The appellant has acquired 66 marks in the examination. In the final reserve list published subsequently, the candidates with 66 cut off marks were considered for employment, however the name of appellant did not appear in the final reserve list, rather a new candidate: Kumari Soni, has appeared in the list whose name was not present in the provisional list published. The appellant addressed the above discrepancy in the result thru RTI no.
IAGRI/R/T/22/00049 dated 16.02.2022 (Document Reference: D) in which details of selection criteria were sought for by the applicant. After receiving no response from the authority, the applicant has filed a first appeal (no. IAGRI/A/E/22/00010 dated 28.03.2022 : documents E & F). Subsequently a response was received thru letter no. 7- 77/2022/Rectt .Cell/RTI 138 dated 29.03.2022 (reference: G). In the response received the concerned has mentioned that the merit list has been prepared in accordance to the guidelines issued by ASRB. Subsequently, the applicant requested the appellate authority to provide her with guidelines thru the RTI no. ASRBD/R/E/22/00110 dated 30.03.2022 (Reference : H). The response was provided thru letter dated 28.04.2022 (Reference: I).
In the reply to RTI dated 30.03.2022(Reference: I), the concerned CPIO has referred to the guidelines dated 29.06.2017 issued by the concerned institution (ASRB/IARI). On mere perusal of the reply, it is apparent that the exam was held in 2016 and the guidelines were issued in 2017. Consequently, these guidelines cannot be prevalent/relevant at the time of examination. Subsequently, the appellant requested the appellate authority to provide her with guidelines that were prevalent/relevant for the said examination thru the first appeal no. ASRBD/A/E/22/00017 dated 09.05.2022(Reference: J). In the response received thru letter dated 22-06-2022 with ref no. 7- 76/2022/Rectt. Cell/RTI/227(reference: K), the authority has provided the details in relation to guidelines which are not relevant to the RTI and subsequent first appeal. No further clarification has been received from the concerned authority in this regard."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-3
Appellant: Represented by Himanshu Sachdeva present through intra-video conference.
Respondent: Rual Thawmte, S.O. & CPIO along with Vikram Goyal, Assistant present through intra-video conference.
The Rep. of Appellant reiterated the contents of instant Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and further expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that copies of relevant guidelines issued prior to the examination of 2016 have not been supplied to the Appellant till date.
The CPIO submitted that there are no specific guidelines as such issued by ASRB relevant to the time of T3 examination held on 17.07.2016 pertaining to consideration of the date of birth for the selection of candidates in T3 examination in case of ties, available in their office. However, such policy decisions have been taken by the Board . At the behest of the Commission, he further clarified that in this regard, a Board of Members' meeting was held in May, 2016 and he agreed to share the minutes of said meeting with the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that in the instant RTI application the Appellant has not sought for any specific information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Concededly, her request for information is more in the nature of a grievance vis-à-vis non-selection for the post of Technical Assistant despite fulfilling the criteria and further seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
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. 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, 4 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 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:
5"..... 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 Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
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 has held as under:
"6. ....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."6
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) Nonetheless, considering the hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of Board's meeting held in May, 2016 which may suffices the information sought by the Appellant. In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to invoke Section 10 of the RTI Act for redacting the details and identifying particulars of third parties Members/Officers which may figure out from the noting/remarks/correspondences, etc. from the minutes of said meeting and cannot be divulged in view of Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, relevant extract of Section 10 is reproduced below:
"...10. Severability.--
(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information...."
The above said information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) 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