Central Information Commission
Md Shakil Raja vs High Court Of Other States on 4 April, 2019
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/HCOST/A/2018/146285
Md Shakil Raja ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, High Court of Culcutta, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
Kolkata
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 12.12.2017 FA : 24.01.2018 SA : 19.07.2018
CPIO : 27.04.2018 FAO : 07.03.2018 Hearing : 01.04.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), High Court of Culcutta, Kolkata seeking information on three points, including, inter-alia, (i) reason for indicating remarks 'Not Eligible' in his final result of recruitment to the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) in the West Bengal Judicial Services published Page 1 of 5 on 30.11.2017 and (ii) a copy of the remarks/noting made by the committee members on his representation dated 27.11.2017.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO wrongly denied the information sought on point no. C(2)(i) of the RTI application without citing any exemption clause under Section 8 of the RTI Act and also the information furnished on point nos. C(2)(ii) and (iii) of the RTI application, is incomplete and irrelevant. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and to impose a penalty upon the CPIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Shakil Raja and the respondent Shri Debasis Banerjee, CPIO and Dy. Registrar (Admn.), High Court of Calcutta, Kolkata attended the hearing through videoconferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that on point no. C(2)(i) of the RTI application he has sought the reason for indicating remarks 'Not Eligible' in his final result of recruitment to the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) of the West Bengal Judicial Services. However, the CPIO denied information by merely stating that 'this is not information in nature rather explanation, hence, cannot be provided'. Further, in response to point nos. C(2)(ii) and (iii) of the RTI application, the documents furnished to him are irrelevant and incomplete as he has not been provided the status of his representation dated 27.11.2017 with regard to the fulfillment of the eligibility criteria for direct recruitment on the abovesaid post.
Page 2 of 55. The respondent submitted that in compliance with the FAA's order dated 07.03.2017, a point wise reply was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 27.04.2018. He stated that on point no. C(2)(i) of the RTI application the information sought is clarificatory in nature, which does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Further, on point nos. C(2)(ii) and
(iii) of the RTI application a copy of the relevant extracts of the note dated 28.11.2017 which was placed by the Registrar General cum Secretary, Selection Board before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, the Chairman of the Selection Committee, was provided to the appellant. He stated that from the said note it transpires that all the relevant papers i.e. including the appellant's representation dated 27.11.2017 regarding his eligibility for the post of District Judge (Entry Level), were placed before the Registrar General cum Secretary, Selection Board. The respondent added that it has also been mentioned in the said note that the appellant and another candidate are not eligible for the post of District Judge from the Members of the Bar. Thus, the reason/clarification as sought by the appellant on point no. C(2)(i) of the RTI application has also been answered vide the above said note dated 28.11.2017. The respondent clarified that the information/document as available on record has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 27.04.2018.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.; Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011; date of judgment 09.08.2011 had observed as under:Page 3 of 5
7. "....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........"
8. In view of the above, the respondent should have provided the material available in the records of the respondent on the basis of which the appellant was declared as 'not eligible', instead of denying the same on the grounds that it is in the nature of a query. The Commission, however, observes that the response to point no.
C2(ii) provides the information sought vide point no. C2(i) of the RTI application. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 02.04.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोनिल्ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) High Court of Culcutta, Appellate Side, Kolkata-700001
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), High Court of Culcutta, Appellate Side, Kolkata-700001
3. Shri Shakil Raja Page 5 of 5