Central Information Commission
A Pandian vs Union Public Service Commission on 16 May, 2019
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/2017/154904/SD
A Pandian ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi - 110069. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 05/01/2016
CPIO replied on : 07/02/2017
First appeal filed on : 23/02/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 23/03/2017
Second Appeal dated : 30/07/2017
Date of Hearing : 08/05/2019
Date of Decision : 16/05/2019
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 8 points regarding implementation of order dated 08.01.2016 of Madurai Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court for consideration of his name for appointment to IAS of Tamil Nadu cadre.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.1
Respondent: Ashok Prasad, US & CPIO and Jai Kishore, DS, Union Public Service Commission present in person.
Appellant stated that the information provided by the CPIO amounts to breach of accountability as the CPIO did not ensure compliance of the Court order referred in the RTI Application(s). He further submitted that as per the mandate of RTI Act, CPIO is duty bound to make actions of the public authority accountable. He furthermore referred to the grounds of his Second Appeal and written submissions sent before hearing. He also argued that grievance redressal is very much a mandate of RTI Act as held by the Commission in File No. CIC/CRRIN/A/2017/170804.
CPIO submitted that as far as the RTI Application is concerned, all available information has been provided to the Appellant. That, in the Second Appeal, Appellant has not contested the information provided on the RTI Application but the action/inaction of the public authority in terms of why name of an ineligible IAS officer was not stripped off: why his name was not recommended for IAS to DoPT; why the State Government was not pulled up for not sending the proposal as directed by the Hon'ble High Court etc. He furthermore submitted that after receipt of the averred proposal in the year 2018, Appellant exercised the option to be interviewed separately for the Select List of 2000 and 2003; however, he could not succeed in both the interviews and was accordingly not recommended by the Selection Committee for appointment to IAS.
Decision Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that the instant Appeal is premised on two RTI Applications filed on the same subject matter as referred above and CPIO has provided an appropriate reply as per the provisions of RTI Act. The primary contention of the Appellant in the Second Appeal is that the CPIO, UPSC has not obeyed the Court order in as much as the CPIO failed to get the proposal from the concerned State Government within the time frame stipulated by the Court and that the CPIO, UPSC has also failed to exercise his power to pull up the concerned State Govt. to comply with the direction of the Court. Appellant alleges that since CPIO, UPSC did not execute these powers before providing the reply on the RTI Application; the information thus provided lacks accountability and is therefore deemed as incorrect, incomplete and misleading. Further, in the written submissions sent prior to hearing, Appellant has stated his prayer as under:2
File No : CIC/UPSCM/A/2017/154904/SD "1) UPSC may be directed to provide information to DoPT recommending my case to IAS with continuity in service with effect from 2000 year immediately.
2) UPSC may further be directed to provide information recommending the stripping off IAS of the above mentioned officers to DoPT immediately."
It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant has misconstrued the mandate of RTI Act and is insistent on mortifying the CPIO for not taking up his case of IAS recommendation. In this regard, the reliance placed by him on an earlier order of the Commission in File No. CIC/CRRIN/A/2017/170804 cannot be applied to the merits of this case. The averred case dealt with the issue of a pensioner's grievance regarding recovery of excess amount paid from pension and the coordinate bench premised its rationale on the 'sustenance' of an individual on pension. In doing so, the coordinate bench of the Commission reflected on the need for public authorities to look into redressal of grievances even if it is routed through RTI Act. That ratio laid down by the coordinate bench at best can be relied upon on a case to case basis as outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of RTI Act to include deductions; 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 of RTI Act. While placing reliance on precedents, Appellant shall take note of the following obiter dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Major Bahadur Singh (2006 (1) SCC 368):
"Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper."
Moreover, Appellant's insistence that since CPIO did not make the action of the public authority accountable before providing the information, therefore the information provided is incorrect and misleading is a preposterous argument. Ascribing a mandate of grievance redressal on the CPIO(s) even as RTI Act nowhere provides for the same is completely unwarranted. In this regard, we may also look at the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject of interpretation of statutes in the matter of Gurudevdatta VKSS Maryadit & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 2298 of 2001) in the following words:
3"Further we wish to clarify that it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences...."
Per contra, the reliance placed by the CPIO in his written submission on certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act is well founded. The said judgments are reproduced hereunder for clarity:
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) 4 File No : CIC/UPSCM/A/2017/154904/SD Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Actan applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"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...."
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 5 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."
Further, it may also be noted that Commission cannot adjudicate on the merits of the administrative actions/inactions of the public authority as the same is outside the purview of RTI Act. In this context, reference may be had of a judgment of 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 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the foregoing discussion, Commission rejects the contentions of the Appellant and orders no relief in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
6
File No : CIC/UPSCM/A/2017/154904/SD
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by User
Date: 2019.05.16 17:42:00 IST
7