Central Information Commission
K Ankita vs Department Of Expenditure on 17 November, 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 : CIC/DOEXP/A/2021/145301
K Ankita ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Expenditure,
Controller General of
Accounts, RTI Cell, Mahalekha
Niyantrak Bhawan, E-Block,
GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi-110023. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16/11/2022
Date of Decision : 16/11/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/02/2021
CPIO replied on : 25/02/2021
First appeal filed on : 30/03/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 07/05/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14/10/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.02.2021 seeking the following information:
"The information solicited for Schedule Tribe-Halba-Koshti-AAO/PAO got promotion under the ST category from 2006 onwards:1
1. Whether the Schedule Tribe-Halba-Koshti officials are eligible for promotion under the category-Yes or No. Please specify.
2. Please furnish the list of officials (AAO's and PAO's) belongs to Schedule Tribe Halba/Halba-Koshti in a tabular form."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 25.02.2021 as under:-
Point No. 1:- "The application has been made to reply to 'whether'. This does not fall under the definitions prescribed under clause 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and Para 4 of the Guidelines for the information seekers under the Right to Information Act, 2005 issued by DoPT.
Point No. 2:-Caste-wise List of officials (AAOs/PAOs) belonging to Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribe is not maintained in this office. The information is not available in material form. Creation/interpretation of any information in this regard does not fall under the definitions prescribed under clause 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 as preparation of this would disproportionately direct the resources of the public authority."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.03.2021. FAA's order dated 07.05.2021 held as under:-
"2. It is further to inform you that O/o CGA remained dosed for long time due to spread of second wave of COVID-19 pandemic due to which the office could not able to provide the information in the prescribed time schedule under RTI Act. Moreover, no e-mail address has been provided in the RTI/ Appeal application for forwarding of the reply letter from the Appellate Authority due to which the matter has further been delayed."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Represented by Anil Kumar through video conference. Respondent: Madhukar Sharma, Sr. Accounts Officer & CPIO present in person.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Application and explained as under:
"The O/o CGA being the Cadre Controlling Authority approved the promotion of officers (AAO/PAO) based on benefit of ST Category reservation and allocated them to Ministries/Departments. The promotion of the SC/ST Category 2 officers is provisional and is subject to verification of caste certificate by the Appointing Authority of the concerned Ministry/Department where the officer has been allocated on promotion as AAO/PAO as per DoPT OM No. 36011./1,/2012- Estt. (Res.) dated 8*h October,2015 failing which his/her promotion based on benefit of reservation is liable to be withdrawn. As such, no caste-wise records of the SC/ST categories officers is maintained in this office."
The Rep. of the Appellant stated that the averred information ought to be available with the Respondent office being the cadre controlling authority.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information sought for at point no.1 of the RTI Application does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant sought for a clarification/answer, while at point no.2, although the CPIO provided a factual reply, fact remains that the said category of information stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) 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 washeld 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 3 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, with respect to the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, reliance is placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information"
envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5