Central Information Commission
Narender Kumar vs Navodya Vidyalaya Samiti on 29 May, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/CC/A/2014/001099/MP
Appellant : Shri Narender Kumar, Ludhiana
Public Authority : NVS, Noida
Date of Hearing : May 08, 2017
Date of Decision : May 29, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Not present
Respondent : Shri Bishnu Charan Panda, Asst. Commissioner,
NVS (HQ), Shri N.K. Pahwa, Asst. Commissioner,
NVS(RO) Chandigarh - at CIC
RTI application : 11.04.2014
CPIO's reply : 13.06.2014
First appeal : 10.07.2014
FAA's Order : 14.08.2014
Second appeal : 12.09.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Narender Kumar, the appellant, sought opinion as to whether or not a UDC could be transferred to his/her favourable post on completion of minimum tenure/tenure counts at his current place of posting, irrespective of the prescribed transfer policy; copy of any guidelines/rules for mutual transfer under which LDCs Ms. Poonam Kumari and Shri Suresh Kumar were transferred on request, to their favourable post; whether or not any teaching staff had filed a court case against MOD duty; cut-off points prescribed for the year 2014-15 for teaching and non- teaching staff of Vidyalaya to consider cases of transfer on request.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) informed the appellant on points 3 & 4 of his application which was related to his Department, to provide name/details of the specific case regarding which he sought information so as to enable him to provide the desired information and informed that no information was available on point 4 as the process for transfer was not yet complete dissatisfied with the incomplete response by the CPIO, the appellant approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and requested him to provide complete information by forwarding it to the CPIO concerned. The FAA informed the appellant that the PIO, NVS RO, Chandigarh, vide reply dated 13.06.2014, informed the NVS HQ on points 1 & 2 of his application that a CPIO was not supposed to give any opinion/advice to the information seeker under the RTI Act, 2005, but, only the information available as per the records and upheld the decision of the CPIO, NVS HQ, on point 1 & 2 of the application. Aggrieved, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that incomplete information had been provided to him by the CPIO and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present at the time of hearing despite the notice for hearing having been duly sent to him. The appellant had sought opinion of the respondent authority on transfer policy of NVS and copy of court case, if any, filed by the teaching staff against NVS, etc. through four points.
4. The respondent from NVS HQ submitted that information sought by the appellant under points 3 & 4 of his application which pertained to their office and the CPIO requested the appellant to provide the details of specific court case so as to enable him to provide the desired information and further no transfers took place at the time of filing of RTI application and therefore, no information could have been provided to the appellant relating to minimum transfer counts under point 4 of the application. However, the information was now available and the appellant was provided the same, as per the records, by the CPIO on 05.05.2017. The respondent from NVS, RO, Chandigarh, informed the Commission that the appellant sought opinion/advice which, the CPIO was not obligated to furnish under the RTI Act and the same was communicated to the PIO, NVS HQ, vide letter dated 13.06.2014. However, the appellant had sought information regarding the transfer of two LDCs in his RTI application. The transfers in question were either on medical grounds or in view of long stay at a hard/very hard station and that no transfers were made arbitrarily or on the employee's request.
5. On hearing both the parties, the Commission observes that available information, as per the records, has been already provided to the appellant on all the points of his RTI application. A public authority is not supposed to create non- available information or furnish opinions or advice on any matter for the satisfaction of the appellant. A public authority is supposed to furnish only that information to the appellant which is held by it or under its control in material form under the Act. This has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyaya:
"The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. 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."
6. The Commission, therefore, upholds the decision of the CPIO. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Assistant Commissioner (Estt.), Joint Commissioner (admn.), B - 15, Sector - 62, Institutional Area, B - 15, Sector - 62, Institutional G.B. Nagar, Noida, Area, G.B. Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh - 201 309 Uttar Pradesh - 201 309 Shri Narender Kumar, Kothi No. 55/2, Jawahar Nagar Camp, Ludhiana, Punjab