Central Information Commission
S P Jagtap vs Central Water And Power Research ... on 23 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 : CIC/MOWRC/A/2022/117326 +
CIC/CWPRS/A/2022/615829
S P Jagtap ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Water and Power
Research Station (CWPRS),
RTI Cell, Khadakwasla RS PO,
Sinhgad Road, Pune-411024,
Maharashtra .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/08/2022
Date of Decision : 22/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for the sake
of brevity and decisions as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16/12/2021 & 25/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 09/01/2022 & 04/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 02/02/2022 & 02/02/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 20/02/2022 & 20/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07/04/2022 & Nil
1
CIC/MOWRC/A/2022/117326
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.12.2021 seeking the following information regarding promotion of Assistant Research Officer to the post of Scientist B at CWPRS, Pune, including inter alia;
1. "Provide the information regarding the exact date on which the vacancy from the post of ARO to Scientist B in CWPRS was created for my promotion,
2. Provide the information for delay in DPC for the post of ARO to Scientist 6 at CWPRS, Pune.
3. Kindly provide the information in respect of present status of DPC from the post of ARO to Scientist B to be conducted in CWPRS, Pune.
4. Provide the information regarding time period between two successive DPCs conducted for the post of ARO to Scientist 6 in CWPRS, Pune.
5. As, I am eligible for Scientist B since 2019. Till upto DPC for the said post has not been conducted at CWPRS. Please provide me the information regarding implementation of the promotion from the post of ARC to Scientist B through DPC with effect from 2019 (from my eligibility) on compensatory ground as retirement due to superannuation will be in July 2027."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 09.01.2022 stating as follows:-
Point No. 1, 2, 3 & 5 :- "CPIO is not supposed to give a reason or answer any specific question. The CPIO will only provide the information sought by the applicant in the form it is available with him/her. Any specific question raised can not be answered due to the non-availability of information.
Point No. 4:- Promotions are made as per DOPT OM No. 22011/4/2013- Estt(D), Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi, dated 8th May, 2017. It is available on https://documents.doptcirculars.nic.in."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.02.2022. FAA's order dated 20.02.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/MOWRC/A/2022/615829 2 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.11.2021 seeking the following information regarding details of the DPC of Assistant Research Officer to the post of Scientist B at CWPRS, Pune, including inter-alia;
1. "The date of last DPC held for ARO to Scientist B of CWPRS, Pune.
2. The exact date on which the vacancy was created for my promotion.
3. The total number of posts for which DPC is yet to be conducted.
4. The authentic reasons for the delaying in conducting the DPC.
5. The name & designation of officers responsible for conducting the DPC at CWPRS, Ministry of Jal Shakti & UPSC thereof.
6. The minimum time for conducting the DPC as per Govt. rules.
7. State clearly whether the DPC is to be conducted every year regularly as per the DoPT guidelines : Yes / No."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 04.12.2021 stating as follows:-
Point No. 1:- The last DPC held for ARO to Scientist B of CWPRS was 05.12.2019.
Point No. 2, 4 & 5:- CPIO is not supposed to give reason or answer any specific question. The CPIO will only provide information sought by the applicant in the form it is available with him/ her. Any specific question raised can not be answered due to non availability of information. Point No. 3:- 08 (Eight) posts Point No. 6 & 7:- Promotions are made as per DOPT OM No. 22011/4/2013--Estt(D), Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi, dated 8th May, 2017. It is available on https://documents.doptcirculars.nic.in Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.02.2022. FAA's order dated 20.02.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal(s) on the ground of vague reply received from the CPIO. He further raised the following arguments in the instant Appeal -
3"...I have been eligible for promotion to the grade of Scientist B since 2019 as the vacancy (25% quota) was available after the retirement due to the superannuation/death of the Group "A" officers at CWPRS. The DPCs or MACPs on anticipated basis & assessments for Scientist Cadres were conducted by CWPRS in consultations with Ministry & UPSC at New Delhi in December 2020, January 2021, December 2021 and January 2022.
But, till date the DPC of ARO to the grade of Scientist "B" has not been conducted at CWPRS, Pune. A letter for requesting to conduct the DPC for the post of ARO to Scientist "B" was submitted to the Director, CWPRS vide letter dated 24.11.2021 & 08.03.2022. The reply from the Chief Administrative Officer, CWPRS was received vide letter No. 603/60/Estt.I/2021/1902 dated 08.12.2021 (copy enclosed). Therefore, it is requested to expedite the matter in respect of conduction of DPC of the ARO cadre to the post of Scientist "B" as my retirement due to superannuation will be in July 2027.
Delay in my promotion to the post of Scientist "B" will affect my future career and substantial financial losses as well..."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Y.N. Srivastava, Addl. Director & CPIO present through video- conference.
The Appellant at the outset narrated the factual background/grievance pertaining to his promotion case which led him to filing of RTI Application(s). He further apprised the Commission that just recently i.e. a day before the hearing , he got an opportunity from the CPIO for inspection of relevant records for the information sought; however, expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that despite inspecting the records he did not receive the desired clarifications more specifically the exact date of his promotion from the CPIO. In this regard, the Commission counselled the Appellant that the contents of RTI Application are more in the form of queries which are majorly in the form of seeking clarifications/explanation from the CPIO based on interrogatories which do not fall under the ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act per se.4
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated Nil filed in case no. CIC/MOWRC/A/2022/615829 and submitted that in response to clarificatory nature of RTI Applications , reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant earlier as per the provisions of the RTI Act ; however, upon receipt of the hearing notice, a revised reply along with all the correspondences of DPC proceedings pertaining to Appellant's case have also been supplied to him vide letter dated 19.08.2022 coupled with an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect the records. The fact that the Appellant has inspected the entire file and received the requisite information, there is no other additional record/information left at their end.
Decision:
In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record does not find any scope of action in the instance matter with respect to the information sought for as well as the replies of the CPIO provided thereon; as the queries raised by the Appellant are more in the nature of seeking clarifications to be drawn by the CPIO based on his grievance for promotion/service matter.
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 also 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 have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and 5 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 citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO through his latest written submission is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question. Also, it is an admitted fact by the Appellant 6 himself that he has inspected the relevant records/ documents and received the requisite information.
Having observed as above, no further relief is pertinent in the matter.
However, the Appellant is advised to pursue any further grievance through appropriate administrative mechanism.
The appeal(s) are disposed of 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 / 7