Central Information Commission
Dr Kamal Chandra Tiwari vs Union Public Service Commission on 6 January, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No :CIC/UPSCM/A/2018/636567
Dr. K C Tiwari ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Union Public Service Commission,
RTI Cell, Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 22/10/2018
CPIO replied on : 01/11/2018
First appeal filed on : 06/11/2018
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Second Appeal dated : 07/12/2018
Date of Hearing : 05/01/2021
Date of Decision : 05/01/2021
सूचना आयु : सरोज पुनहािन
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 24 points regarding the selection of Dr. Jagmohan Meher and Dr. S S Mishra as Professors in National Defence Academy (NDA) vide UPSC recruitment advertisement dated 14.07.2012in terms of documents of the Selection Committee wherein these individuals have been declared as "Outstanding/Eminent Scholars"; copy of the rule under which they were declared so; copy of the UPSC application form and its annexures submitted 1 by the said individuals; copy of their UGC API Score sheet submitted in Dec 2012 prior to the UPSC interview; name of the officer who verified the API Score sheet etc. Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information on points no.(a), (b), (p), (q),
(x), (k), (w), (r), (s) of the RTI Application.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present with Advocate Prasad Rao, Advocate through video- conference.
Respondent: Devendra Kumar US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that at this stage he is limiting the relief sought to point no. 1(a) of the RTI Application as he has not been provided with the exact record/document wherein it is mentioned that Dr Jagmohan Meher's selection at UPSC was done on the basis of him being an "Outstanding Scholar".
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant has been provided with the inspection of the entire recruitment file and he has no additional information to provide in this regard. He further submitted that he is not required to interpret queries under the RTI Act and what the Appellant is demanding during the hearing is clearly outside the mandate of the RTI Act.
Upon a query from the Commission, the Appellant agreed to have inspected the entire record but insisted that the CPIO should state whether or not there is any such certificate which states that Dr Jagmohan Meher is an outstanding scholar.
The CPIO reiterated that the mandate of the RTI Act does not provide for interpretations and clarifications to be provided to RTI Applicants.
Decision The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the CPIO has rightly pointed out that the information sought for at point no.1 (a) of the RTI Application does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the Appellant's insistence during the hearing to direct the CPIO to affirm the 2 availability of any such certificate pertaining to Dr. Jagmohan Meher is rather unreasonable as the CPIO cannot be compelled to respond to conjecture and hypothesis under the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act as under:
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011] 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. 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. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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 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, 3 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) In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds the instant Appeal bereft of merit and upholds the submissions of the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
सरोज पुनहािन)
Saroj Punhani (सरोज हािन
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
4