Central Information Commission
Jatin Grover vs Indian Renewable Energy Development ... on 16 March, 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/IREDA/A/2022/652851
Jatin Grover अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Renewable Energy
Development Authority Limited
(IREDA), RTI Cell, 3rd Floor,
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji
Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15/03/2023
Date of Decision : 15/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17/05/2022
CPIO replied on : 17/06/2022
First appeal filed on : 04/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 25/07/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Not on record
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.05.2022 seeking the following information and the CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 17.06.2022 stating as under:1
S. No Information Sought Reply
1. Please tell how IREDA has appointed
17 persons as Executive Trainee in
2018 Campus Recruitment
2. Please tell the mode of selection for
17 persons who were appointed as
Executive Trainee in 2018
3 Please tell is there any open
recruitment add given for selection of
17 persons as Executive Trainee in No.
2018.
4 Please tell from which institutes the
17 persons appointed as Executive
Trainee in 2018. Were selected. IIM-Indore, IIM-Kashipur, IIT Roorkee, IMI-
5 Please tell The Detail from which Delhi, TERI SAS Delhi, NLU-Jodhpur, ICAI-
institute the respective 17 persons Delhi ICAI (CMA)-Delhi.
appointed as Executive Trainee in
2018 is selected
6 Please tell what was the qualification For Technical Discipline:
of each Executive Trainee in 2018 • B.E./ B.Tech + MBA/ PGDM M.Tech
For Law Discipline:
05 Years integrated LLB
For Finance Discipline:
CA/CMA
7 Please tell is the qualification of eachExecutive Trainees selected acquired the
Executive Trainee in 2018 is obtained qualifications of MBA/ M.Tech/ LLB/ CA/ from the same institute from which CMA (as per the discipline) from the they are selected or they gained institutes as furnished above at S.N.4/5.
different qualification from different institutes. Please provide the details of the same 8 Please provide the Departmental Organizational requirement.
requirement given by HODs for the 17 persons appointed as Executive Trainee in 2018. If any and if not then on what grounds the selection of 17 2 persons as Executive Trainee in 2018.
Was done 9 Please tell how the Institutes were selected for selection of 17 persons as Executive Trainee in 2018.
10 Please tell is there and board Premier institutes were selected.
approved institutes if yes please provide the copy of board approval and if not then please tell how the institutes were selected for selection of 17 persons as Executive Trainee in 2018.
11 Please tell who was the purposing Proposing Authority -- no such Authority
authority for the selection of 17 exist
persons as Executive Trainee in 2018 Approving Authority for camp interview -
and who the approving authority was Chairman & Managing Director (CMD)
for the 17 persons as Executive
Trainee in 2018. Also provide the copy
of approvals
12 Please provide the criteria for Premier institutes were selected.
selection of the institutes from which
the 17 persons as Executive Trainee in
2018. Were appointed
13 Please provide the requirement send Requirement and subsequent
and correspondence done with the correspondence was done during February to
various institutes from where the 17 May 2018.
persons as Executive Trainee in 2018
were selected
14 Please tell who on behalf of IREDA High Power Committee(s) constituted.
selected or conducted Test/ interview
in which institute from where the 17
persons as Executive Trainee in 2018
Were selected
15 Please provide what was the need for 1st Para:
17 persons appointed as Executive Organizational requirement.
Trainee in 2018. And is there any
board guidelines or MNRE guidelines 2nd Para: Neither Board Guidelines nor
for selection of executive trainees if MNRE Guidelines, but with the approval of
yes please provide the copy of same Chairman and Managing Director.
3
16 Please tell how many participants
taken part in the selection, institute
wise from where 17 persons as
Executive Trainee in 2018. Were
selected
17 Please tell is there any notification
given on IREDA portal or site for No.
selection of 17 persons as Executive
Trainee in 2018.
18 Please provide the dates and venue of
selection procedure done in different
institutes from where the 17 persons
were appointed as Executive Trainee
in 2018. Is conducted
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.07.2022. FAA's order, dated 25.07.022 held as under:
"... As it is observed from your first Appeal on point No.9 to 13 and point No.16. My decision on these points is as under :-
S.No Information Sought Reply 9. Please tell how the Institutes CPIO has already provided you the list of
were selected for selection of 17 institutes. persons as Executive Trainee in 2018.
10 Please tell is there and board Board has empowered CMD.
approved institutes if yes please provide the copy of board approval and if not then please tell how the institutes were selected for selection of 17 persons as Executive Trainee in 4 2018.
11 Please tell who was the I agree with the response of the CPIO.
purposing authority for the selection of 17 persons as Executive Trainee in 2018 and who the approving authority was for the 17 persons as Executive Trainee in 2018. Also provide the copy of approvals 12 Please provide the criteria for As explained in response to the point No.9 & 10 selection of the institutes from the premier institutes based on mutual which the 17 persons as communications are selected. Executive Trainee in 2018. Were appointed 13 Please provide the requirement I agree with the response of the CPIO.
send and correspondence done with the various institutes from where the 17 persons as Executive Trainee in 2018 were selected 14 Please tell who on behalf of I agree with the response of the CPIO.
IREDA selected or conducted Test/ interview in which institute from where the 17 persons as Executive Trainee in 2018 Were selected 15 Please provide what was the I agree with the response of the CPIO.
need for 17 persons appointed as Executive Trainee in 2018. And is there any board guidelines or MNRE guidelines for selection of executive trainees if yes please provide the copy of same 5 16 Please tell how many participants taken part in the selection, institute wise from where 17 persons as Executive Trainee in 2018. Were selected Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Ashok Dash, Chief Manager (H& D) & CPIO assisted by Advocate Mahabir Singh Kasana present in person.
The Appellant vehemently expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply contesting the fact that desired information was required by him in order to corroborate evidence in his non promotion case which is under adjudication before a court of law flagging also the issue of unethical practices followed by the Respondent organization in these matter. He further emphasized that a copy of correspondences as sought for at point no. 13 to 15 and 16 at least should be shared by the CPIO.
The advocate of the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 13.03.2023 wherein he inter alia, stated as under -6
"...Shri Jatin Grover has been frequently filing frivolous and vexatious RTI applications from time to time. This leads to officers and staff of IREDA spending a major amount of their working time in processing his queries and complaints and leads to disproportionate diversion of our limited resources.
Shri Jatin Grover was engaged by outsourcing agency in IREDA in various spells through the then empaneled manpower agencies of IREDA from May'2014 to 2nd May 2022. His services were dispensed-off with effect from 2nd May 2022. In March 2022, IREDA notified various posts in different discipline. He applied for the post of Protocol Officer/Officer on Special Duty/Technical Assistant at E-0 level. In the initial scrutiny of the applications received, he was not shortlisted for further consideration, since he was not meeting the eligibility criteria as advertised. It appears that he developed a grudge against organization due to his not being shortlisted and started filing RTI applications/complaint, and approaching various other forums.
He has submitted 30 RTI applications containing more than 220 questions and 10 RTI appeals. All these RTI's have been duly replied. It is observed that RTI which he filed in IREDA are also submitted to Ministry of New & Renewable Energy. IREDA received these RTIs from MNRE as well which is duplication of efforts at Ministry and IREDA. Most of the RTI queries are frivolous in nature and have no substantive purpose. Many RTI queries are in the form of unscrupulous and malicious allegations against IREDA officials. However, in spite of all that we have been sending replies to Shri Jatin Grover and copy of few such replies have also been forwarded to RTI Cell MNRE, when specifically asked for.
It is humbly submitted that in this case RTI application has been filed by Sh. Jatin Grover on 17.05.2022 which has been duly replied by CPIO vide letter dated 17.06.2022 and subsequently First appeal has been disposed of within the stipulated time frame by the First Appellate Authority by giving additional information. The applicant has asked 18 questions in the RTI application and CPIO reply is comprehensive giving all information as available with IREDA. The information sought by the applicant and the reply is reproduced below:
xxx....."
In summing up of his arguments, the CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant permissible information has already been parted with the Appellant.7
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that concededly, the queries raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal are majorly in the form of seeking clarifications from the CPIO which do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act and it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that he is seeking redressal of a grievance.
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, 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 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, 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) 8 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:
"..... 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 9 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."
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) The Appellant is therefore advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future. He is further advised to pursue the grievances pertaining to his non-selection before the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 10 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 11