Central Information Commission
P Sudharajan vs Ministry Of Railways (Railway Board) on 5 July, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MORLY/A/2023/620303
P Sudharajan .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001. .....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.07.2024
Date of Decision : 04.07.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.10.2022
CPIO replied on : 28.10.2022
First appeal filed on : 02.11.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 17.04.2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 23.04.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"With reference to the reply given to my Grievance no MORLY/E/2021/18520 DATED04.12.2021, please provide the following information.
1. Is ME degree obtained through Integrated ME degree course not a valid degree?Page 1 of 11
2. Is ME degree obtained through Integrated ME degree course not meeting the Recruitment rule for the post of Chemist and Metallurgist?
3. As per the Recruitment Rule for the post of Chemist and Metallurgist, are any Degree in Metallurgy from recognized universities eligible?
4. During the said Recruitment by UPSC vide advertisement no 15/2018, UPSC was mandating the candidates to select the degrees as BE/BTech level or ME/MTech level. Are the levels of the Degrees as per Recruitment rule of the said post?
5. During the Recruitment to the said post pertaining to UPSC Advertisement no 15/2018, did UPSC seek any clarification from Railways regarding list of degrees or Integrated Master degree in Metallurgy (Integrated ME degree)? If yes, please provide details.
6. As an employer and Recruitment Rule maker, is it not your duty to provide information as to whether a particular degree in Metallurgy is as per RR or not?
7. UPSC says that ME degree in Metallurgy is not considered to meet the Recruitment Rule. Does Railways concur the same?
8. Bachelor degree is the minimum possible degree in Metallurgy. Does it meet the requirements or not in respect of the RR of the said post?
9. What is the basis on which the educational qualifications are fixed for the said post in the Recruitment rule?
10. Are there any duration, syllabus and standard taken into consideration while framing the subject RR?
11. Can I assume that UGC specified degrees in Metallurgy are eligible for the said post as per the RR?
12. Who is competent to interpret the above RR in respect of educational qualification and validity of ME degree obtained through Integrated Course?"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.10.2022 stating as under:
The issue hinges around the application required to made for obtaining information u/s 7(1). Under this clause a CPIO, on receipt of "a request"
is expected to deal with a fee. It is therefore not open the applicant under RTI act to bundle a series of requests into one application unless these are treated separately and paid for accordingly. Further as per CIC ruling in case No. CIC/AT/2006/00045 dated 21.04.2006.Page 2 of 11
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.11.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 17.04.2023 held as under.
2. For item no. 1 to 4 and 6 to 11 of the original RTI application, as regards the Appeal preferred by you it is stated that the information sought is in form of query that is interrogatory/ clarificatory/hypothetical in nature and hence does not fall under the definition of "information" and "right to information" as per section 2(f) and (j) of the RTI Act 2005. The RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries, as in the case, in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his/her questions with prefixes, such as, why, what, when and whether. Besides, only such information is required to be supplied under the RTI Act, 2005 which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. The CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to explain the hypothetical queries raised by the applicants. Hence, no information can be provided.
3. With regard to item no.5 therein, it is stated that as per available records, no such clarification was sought by UPSC. Further, for item no.12 of the RTI application, please refer to Note 1 at Column no.8 of the Recruitment Rules of the post of Chemist and Metallurgist given at S.No.4(iii). (Copy enclosed).
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Kamal Kishore, Dy. Director accompanied by Shri D. K. Biswas, Dy. Director/ Nodal APIO RTI Cell, Shri Manohar Lal, Dy. Director/ Nodal CPIO and Shri Ajay Kumar, Section Officer, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi present in person.
The Commission is in receipt of a written submission dated Nil from the Appellant which is taken on record. Contents of which are reproduced below -Page 3 of 11
"Background:
I have registered a grievance, MORLY/E/2021/18520 dated 4/12/2021 requesting to include ME degree obtained through Integrated course as one of the eligible educational qualification in the Recruitment rule for the post of Chemist and Metallurgist in Indian railways. The grievance and reply to it are given below:-
Grievance Description For the post of Chemist and Metallurgist, the Recruitment Rule has not given elaborate list of Degrees in Metallurgy in the Educational Qualification. Please include single ME degree obtained through Integrated course as one of the eligible educational qualification. Current Status Case closed Date of Action 27/01/2022 Remarks by Railways Inclusion of ME Integrated course in the list of educational qualifications in the RRs of Chemist & Metallurgist Department of Indian Railways will be examined in the due course.
xxx The Recruitment rule for the subject post, Chemist and Metallurgist, mentions the requisite educational qualification as a Degree in Metallurgy from recognized university.
In public domains of UGC, Integrated Master degrees are approved by UGC's regulations and ME degree is one of the degrees in the list of UGC specified degrees. So degree in Metallurgy mentioned in RR forms a superset, UGC list of degrees forms a subset and ME degree obtained through Integrated course is one element of the subset and superset. Hence by common sense and reasoning, it shall be considered eligible for the subject post.
Point 1. The sought after information shall be provided as the candidate can not judge his eligibility vis-à-vis the subject recruitment rule. Also as per the remarks given by Railways to the grievance registered, it is understood that Integrated ME course is not in the RR which is contradictory to the RR's Page 4 of 11 educational qualification requirement as per the above said super set and subset clarification.
Point no 2-Same as above.
Point no 3- The validity of meeting the RR requirements in terms of educational qualification shall be provided by the employer, that is Railways. Otherwise one will have to come with a separate document or certificate about his educational qualification meeting the RR's qualification requirements.
Point no 4- UPSC, the recruiter for Railways, was recruiting to the subject post of Chemist and Metallurgist, vide UPSC Advertisement no 15/2018 and applications were to be submitted through online and there was a column, "Level of educational qualification" whereas the RR did not mention any. Hence the information in point no 4shall be provided.
Points no 5 &6 The information shall be provided as Yes or No. Pint no 7:- UPSC has once informed to my RTI query that ME degree in Metallurgy is not valid for the recruitment of the post of Chemist and Metallurgist, Railways, of UPSC Advertisement no 15/2018 which is glaringly wrong. The employer and recruiter should work in tandem and at least the employer, Railways, should provide the sought after information.
Points no 8 & 9- The information shall be provided Point no 10: The information shall be Yes or No Point no 11: The employer or Recruitment rule makers shall have the information or at least specify the public domain for the same.
Point no 12: The RR itself says Govt as the competent authority to interpret. The same could have been provided as information Additionally, the information given in Remarks to the grievance registered is contrary to the educational qualification mentioned in the Recruitment rules.Page 5 of 11
In this world of Information Technology, the elaborate information about the requisite educational qualifications shall be provided by the recruiter and employer."
Written submission filed by Shri Kamal Kishore, CPIO-34, Railway Board is taken on record. Shri Kamal Kishore reiterated the contents of his written submission by stating as under -
"1.1 Shri Sundharajan Palaniappan vide his RTI application bearing reference No. MORLY/R/E/22/04469 dated 27.10.2022 had sought information with regards to the 12 points. The reply to the RTI application was submitted by Nodal CPIO/RTI Cell of this Ministry on 28.10.2022 (Annexure-1), also reproduced below verbatim:
"The issue hinges around the application required to be made for obtaining information u/s 7(1). Under this clause a CPIO, on receipt of "a request" is expected to deal with it expeditiously when accompanied with a fee. It is, therefore not open to the applicant under RTI Act to bundle a series of requests into one application unless these are treated separately and paid for accordingly. Further as per CIC ruling in case No. CIC/AT/2006/00045 dated 21.04.2006."
1.2 Not being satisfied with reply furnished Shri Sundharajan registered 1st Appeal vide ID No. MORLY/A/E/22/00968 dated 02.11.2022, which was received in the office of appellate authority Ms. Anvita Sinha, EDE(GC) on 31.03.2023. Reply to Ist Appeal has been provided to the appellant by Exec. Dir.(Estt.(GC)) & FAA, Railway Board on 17.04.2023 (Annexure-II) covering all the points.
1.3 A copy of the Recruitment Rules (RRs) of the Indian Railway Chemical and Metallurgical Department (Group 'A' and 'B' posts), 2011 was provided to the applicant in response to the RTI application. However, interpretation/clarification sought by the applicant in item No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 11 of the RTI application could not be provided as the same is not under the purview of RTI Act.
1.4 With regard to item no.5 information was provided that as per available records, no clarification was sought by UPSC. Further, for item no.12 of the Page 6 of 11 RTI application, the applicant was requested to refer to Note I at Column no.8 of the Recruitment Rules of the post of Chemist and Metallurgist given at S.No.4(iii) (copy of RRs was provided to the applicant).
4.2 APPEAL/ADVANCE CIC:-
2.1 Not being satisfied, the applicant in his 2nd appeal addressed to Hon'ble CIC, has stated that on the basis of reply given to his grievance (no.
MORLY/E/2021/18520 dated 04.12.2021) he filed for the RTI/Appeal, however, no suitable reply except for item no. 5 was received by the applicant. The applicant has also claimed that the reply to the item no. 12 of his RTI is misleading.
2.2 As regards grievances mentioned in the RTI application, the applicant had filed grievances (MORLY/E/2021/18520 dated 04.12.2021 (Annexure III) and Appeal по. MORLY/E/A/23/0003674 received on 20.06.2023 (Annexure IV) to MORLY/E/2023/000035 dated 01.01.2023) and was informed respectively in reply to the grievances that:
1. inclusion of ME Integrated course in the list of educational qualifications in the RRs of Chemist and Metallurgist will be examined in due course;
The recruitment rules for the post of Chemist and Metallurgist are under revision and educational qualification of ME Degree integrated course in Metallurgical Engineering has been proposed to be included. However, the same is subject to examination and recommendation by the Cadre Controlling Authority and approval of Union Public Service Commission.
2.3 For item no. 12, the applicant had sought the competent Authority to interpret the above RRs in respect of educational qualification and validity of ME Degree obtained through Integrated Course. In reply to above, this ministry has referred to Note 1 under column 8 for the post of Chemist and Metallurgist given in the said RRs which is as under:
"Note 1: Qualifications are relax able at the discretion of the Union Public Service Commission for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the case of candidates otherwise well qualified."Page 7 of 11
From the above clause in respect of educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Chemist and Metallurgist, UPSC may relax the provisions of the RRs in respect of educational qualification. Therefore, the above information provided to the applicant is not misleading. Further, any revision/ amendment in the RRs is with due approval of UPSC. If any 2.4 doubt arises regarding any provision of RRS, UPSC is consulted. A copy of the RRs of the Indian Railway Chemical and Metallurgical Department (Group A' and 'B' posts), 2011 is enclosed for ready reference. (Annexure-V)
3. In view of facts explained above, Hon'ble Information Commissioner may like to drop the case or issue suitable directions as deemed fit."
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the reply provided by the CPIO is bereft of merit as the RTI Application merely seeks for clarifications which do not falls under the definition of "information" as per Section 2(f) of 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. 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 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 Page 8 of 11 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 Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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...." (Emphasis Supplied) 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 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 Page 9 of 11 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 above, no relief can be granted in this matter.
ADVISORY Nonetheless, in the larger Public Interest, the Respondent Public Authority is advised to update the concerned section of their website so at to make it easy for a layman to get frequently sought information and relevant clarifications besides providing FAQ section in tune with the letter and spirit of suo moto disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This will also relieve the Public Authority of the burden of RTI Applications, which are filed merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record.
It is further advised that the queries in the RTI Application of the Appellant may be treated as input for stakeholder consultation for revising the RR for the concerned post.
In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the First Appellate Authority is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 10 of 11 Copy To:
The FAA, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
Shri. P Sudharajan No. 58, Anand Apartments, Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai-600008.Page 11 of 11
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)