Central Information Commission
Sandeep Kumar Sinha vs Union Public Service Commission on 18 August, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CI C/UPSCM/A/2021/654678
Sandeep Kumar Sinha ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Union Public Service Commission.
RTI Cell, Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17/08/2022
Date of Decision : 17/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12/10/2021
CPIO replied on : 02/11/2021
First appeal filed on : 12/11/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 16/11/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17/11/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 12.10.2021 seeking the following information:
"If any previous exams have been conducted by UPSC for the recruitment of Deputy Director in Employees State Insurance Corporation Ministry of Labour and Employment the question papers along with the official answer key for the same may please be provided as the same is not available on your official website."1
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.11.2021 stating as follows:-
"Question Paper for the recruitment test for 36 posts of Deputy Director in ESIC, RT held on 04.03.2012 is attached in pdf form. Normal retention period of answer key for the said post is over. As such, information is not available."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.11.2021. FAA's order dated 16.11.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Bhagwan Das, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Application and submitted that as per Record Retention Schedule of the Commission, the Answer keys for the said Recruitment Test are not available as their normal retention period is over. He further submitted that the normal retention schedule of the Commission is available on Commission's website under the head 'RTI- Record retention Schedule 2015' of UPSC.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record observes that the Appellant has argued in the grounds of the Second Appeal as under:
(a) The answer key ought to be archived or maintained in record room or elsewhere or backed up in electronic form. Just because the record m question is old, the same cannot be denied to the applicant in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 4(1) of RTI Act, 2005.
(b) Furthermore, in the case of Shri Ishwar Lal vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
(Decision No. 4620/IC (A)/2009 F. No. CIC/MA/C/2009/00578 dated 05.10.2009), it has been held that denial of information on the basis of non-availability of records is not acceptable.
2(c) Moreover, if the question paper was preserved all this time, it would be axiomatic that the answer key will also be available in physical or digital form.
As evinced from above, the Appellant is challenging the reply of the CPIO on untenable grounds as he is merely insisting that the answer key should be maintained/archived, thus contesting the record retention schedule of the UPSC, which is outside the scope of adjudication of the Commission.
In this regard, reference may be had of a judgment of the 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) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or 3 more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, the Commission finds the instant appeal bereft of merit.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4