Central Information Commission
Kirti vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 January, 2025
के ीय सूचना 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/UPSCM/A/2024/616179
Kirti ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Union Public Service Commission,
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 02.02.2024 FA : 04.03.2024 SA : Nil
CPIO : 04.03.2024 FAO : 11.03.2024 Hearing : 28.01.2025
Date of Decision: 29.01.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"I had applied in EWS category for ESIC Deputy Director Exam (Vacancy No. 21085501414) conducted by UPSC. Recently marks of written qualified marks released. I scored 252.31 which is far above from cut off in EWS Category. My written score was 204.31 which is above cut off of General Category. I had not scored minimum 50 marks in interview. Interview panel given me 48 marks so that I can't be recommended in Final List. Therefore, I want to know that Page 1 of 5
(i) What is the standard for suitability for the interview of candidates?
(ii) Which standard make the interview panel award less than minimum marks to candidates?
(iii) What are criteria of marking interview marks by interview panel?
(iv) What guidelines / training / assessment criteria issued to interview panel for awarding the marks?
(v) What interpersonal skills can make interview panel to not award at least minimum marks in interview?.."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Sought information is not pertained to this section Hence the Information cannot be provided."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 11.03.2024 directed the CPIO to furnish an appropriate reply to the Appellant within 10 (ten) working days from receipt of this letter.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, K Suresh Kumar, US & CPIO along with Rajat Bartiya, ASO attended the hearing in person.
6. The Appellant stated that the CPIO failed to provide a timely reply to the RTI Application and even as the reply was provided it was merely to state that the RTI Application does not pertain to the section. She further submitted that even the compliance of the FAA's order was not carried out and it has been computed with only now prior to the hearing on 27.01.2025.
Page 2 of 57. The Respondent submitted that there has been no delay in providing the original reply to the RTI Application and as for the non-compliance of the FAA's order, the omission is regretted but since the then CPIO has retired from service, he is not able to comment further in that respect. However, he has duly complied with the directions upon receipt of the hearing notice.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes at the outset that the Appellant did not seek for any information as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as she has sought for answers and inputs on speculative and hypothetical queries. 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 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 Page 3 of 5 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)
9. While the CPIO erred in not deciphering the RTI Application properly and in having provided an irrelevant mindless reply, the fact remains that there has been no obstruction caused to the Appellant's right to information per se. For the said reasons, the FAA's order is also found to be erroneous as there has been no observation made with respect to the reply provided by the CPIO or the RTI queries, rather a mechanical direction has been issued which is liable to be set aside. Nonetheless, the present CPIO has provided a revised reply with some factual inputs that are upheld in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act.
A copy of this order is marked to the FAA to take note of the adverse observations of the Commission and to ensure against issuance of mechanical orders on First Appeal(s) in the future.
10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 29.01.2025 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Under Secretary (SPC-II), Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110069
2. First Appellate Authority & Joint Secretary (R-I) Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110069
--(For taking note of the adverse observations of the Commission)
2. Kirti Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)