Central Information Commission
Naveen Prakash Nautiyal vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal ... on 20 June, 2025
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/HNBGU/A/2024/108081 +
CIC/HNBGU/A/2024/108080
Naveen Prakash Nautiyal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Hemvati Nandan
Bahuguna Garhwal ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
University, Garhwal,
Uttarakhand
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.10.2023 & FA : 12.12.2023 &
SA : 11.03.2024
13.10.2023 11.12.2023
CPIO : 17.11.2023 &
FAO : 31.01.2024 Hearing : 16.06.2025
16.02.2024
Note - The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision as
these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Date of Decision: 19.06.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
RTI-I:- CIC/HNBGU/A/2024/108081
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. A candidate of reserved category (OBC/SC/ST) for the post of Assistant Professor in HNBGU intends to apply simultaneously for the UR post and a reserved post, should s/he fill in two separate application forms along with two Page 1 of 7 different fees prescribed separately for the purpose. Please provide certified photocopies of concerning rules and regulations.
2. Whether there is any statutory provision that a candidate of the Reserved Category can simultaneously avail the benefit of two options (Assistant Professor-UR and Assistant Professor-Reserved category at HNBGU) by filling in a single application form remitting a single fee. Please provide certified photocopies of concerning rules and regulations.
3. Whether the Scrutiny-cum-Shortlisting Committee of HNBG (Central) University has any statutory power to place an applicant in two categories (UR and Reserved) in the two separate shortlists for the interview of Assistant Professor.
4. Whether there is any suo moto power vested in the Scrutiny-cum-Shortlisting Committee of HNBGU to arbitrarily include Reserved category applicants in the UR category to make the number of applicants exceeding in a particular ratio, and then, on that pretext, to exclude the targeted General (UR) category candidate(s) denying them Constitutional Right to Equality and Opportunity.
5. Number of candidates of SC and OBC categories who had applied in the UR (01) Category for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject, Social Work, at HNBGU. ..., etc./ other related information 1.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. As per the recruitment notification No. HNBGU/Recruitment(T)/2023/1280 dated 25/01/2023. Reserve category candidates need not to fill separate application form for the UR category posts.
2. As per the point No. 1.
3. As per the point No. 1.
4. As per the point No. 1.Page 2 of 7
5. As per the point No. 1. ..Etc. 1.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 31.01.2024 observed as under:-
"प ावली के अवलोकन से है िक लोक सूचना अिधकारी / सहायक कुलसिचव िनयु अनुभाग हे०न०ब० गढ़वाल िव िव ालय. ीनगर गढ़वाल, ारा िनधा रत समयाविध के तहत सूचनाओं का ेषण िकया गया है। अतः सहायक कुलसिचव िनयु अनुभाग हे०न०ब० गढ़वाल िव िव ालय, ीनगर गढ़वाल, को िनदिशत िकया जाता है िब दु सं ा 01 के द ावेज की ित अनुरोधकता उपल करायी जाय एवं िव दु सं ा 02,03,04,05, एवं 06 से स त सूचनाएँ अपूण है. उ िब दु ओं से स त सूचनाएँ अपीलीय आदे श ा के दो स ाह के अ गत िनशु ेिषत की जाय।"
1.3 In compliance of the FAA order, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under: -
"Point no. 1: A copy of the concerned document i.e. HNBGU/Recruitment(T)/2023/1280 dated 25-01-2023 is attached herewith for your reference.
Point no. 2: A copy of the concerned document i.e. order and judgment of WP (S/B) No. 542 of 2022 is attached herewith for your reference.
Point no. 3: As per point no. 2.
Point no. 4: As per point no. 2.
Point no. 5: Number of applicants of SC category who had applied in UR for post of Assistant Professor Social Work - 10. Number of applicants of OBC category who had applied in UR for post of Assistant Professor Social Work - 16.
Point no. 6: Number of applicants of SC category shortlisted in UR category- 09. Number of applicants of OBC category shortlisted in UR category- 14."Page 3 of 7
1.4 Aggrieved with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 11.03.2024.
RTI-II:- CIC/HNBGU/A/2024/108080
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1 How many candidates of OBC category have paid application fees while applying in the Social Work subject for the post of Assistant Professor in UR category. 2 How many candidates of OBC category are under creamy layer who applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Social Work. 3 How many candidates of OBC category have Central Government OBC certificate who applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Social Work. 4 Whether it was the decision of screening/scrutiny committee to include SC and OBC categories candidates in UR category or the candidates of SC and OBC categories candidates self applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Social Work subject in UR Category. If it was the decision of screening/scrutiny committee, please provide relevant certified photo copies of documents. 5 What was the base that OBC category candidates applied in Social Work subject under UR category in single/same application form.
..., etc./ other related information 2.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. All the OBC category candidates except the candidates exempted from the payment of fee as per terms and conditions mentioned in recruitment notification No. HNBGU/Recruitment(T)/2023/1280 dated 25/01/2023.
2. As per terms and conditions mentioned in recruitment notification No. HNBGU/Recruitment(T)/2023/1280 dated 25/01/2023 for the post earmarked Page 4 of 7 for the OBC category. As per clause 16 of terms and conditions mentioned in recruitment notification No. HNBGU/Recruitment(T)/2023/1280 dated 25/01/2023 only those candidates holding valid certificate OBC (NCL) on prescribed format are considered against the post earmarked for OBC category.
3. As per point no. 2.
4. As per the recruitment notification No. HNBGU/Recruitment(T)/2023/1280 dated 25/01/2023. Reserve category candidates need not to fill separate application form for the UR category posts.
5. As per point no. 4.
Etc. 2.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 31.01.2024 observed as under:-
"प ावली के अवलोकन से है िक लोक सूचना अिधकारी/सहायक कुलसिचव िनयु अनुभाग हे ०न०व० गढ़वाल िव िव ालय. ीनगर गढ़वाल, ारा िनधा रत समयाविध के तहत सूचनाओं का ेषण िकया गया है िक ु िव दु सं ा 02, 03 एवं 04 से स त सूचनाऐं प से नही है अतः कुलसिचव िनयु अनुभाग हे ०न०ब० गढ़वाल िव िव ालय, ीनगर गढ़वाल, को िनदिशत िकया जाता है अनुरोधकता को वांिछत सूचनाय अपीलीय आदे श ा के दो स ाह के अ गत िनशु ेिषत की जाय।"
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 11.03.2023.
Hearing proceedings and Decision:-
3. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Section Officer and Mr. S.P Badal, Assistant Registrar, attended the hearing through video conference.
4. The appellant inter alia submitted that the replies furnished by the CPIO's and Frist Appellate Authorities in both the cases were unsatisfactory.
Page 5 of 75. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in both cases, point-wise available information had been furnished to the appellant vide letters dated 17.11.2023. Moreover, in complaince of the FAA's order dated 31.01.2024, a revised reply had also been provided on 16.02.2024.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought clarification and opinion, which do not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of 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. The following was thus held:
"....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......."
7. However, in the true spirit of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO concerned have provided available information to the appellant vide letters dated 17.11.2023 and 16.02.2024. Further, during the hearing, the appellant was challenging the merit of the CPIO reply which is outside the scope of the adjudication of the Commission. In that regard, attention of the appellant is also drawn towards a observation passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Narendra Tyagi vs Assistant Director (CPIO) [LPA 764/2023], dated 06.12.2023. The following was held:-
"13. Consequently, it is clear that dispute as regards the correctness of information provided under the RTI Act, or any other dispute or controversy, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the RTI Act. The CPIO is only required to supply all the information/documents within his access. Whether or not such information as Page 6 of 7 provided by the CPIO under the RTI Act is incorrect in any manner, is not the domain of consideration or determination under the RTI proceedings."
8. Further, in file no. CIC/HNBGU/A/2024/108080, the Commission sets aside the FAA's order dated 31.01.2024 as the information sought on point nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the RTI application has been appropriately responded by the CPIO. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matters. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 19.06.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, RTI Cell, Administrative Building, Srinagar, Garhwal, Uttarakhand
- 246174 2 Naveen Prakash Nautiyal Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)