Central Information Commission
Satyendra Kumar vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 15 February, 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/DOP&T/A/2020/690857
Satyendra Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Personnel &
Training, RTI Cell, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/02/2021
Date of Decision : 14/02/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/04/2020
CPIO replied on : 28/05/2020
First appeal filed on : 01/07/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 29/07/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.04.2020 seeking the following information related to CIVIL SERVICES EXAMINATION since 2010 to 2016 -
1. Is pay protection allowed if an employee working at a lower post i.e. with Grade Pay 4600 in central government and get selected in Civil Services Examination?1
Will his new salary be fixed at minimum of pay band in new pay or any increments will be admissible at minimum pay to arrive on a final pay in new pay band on joining civil service allotted post (as per 6th CPC)? How many increments will be allowed in such cases? Please also mention the rules related to it.
2. It is noticed that DoPT, New Delhi maintains the reserve list for Civil Services qualified Candidates in General /OBC/SC/ST categories. I want to know whether DoPT also maintains reserve list of Physically Handicapped (HH/VH/LD etc) candidates.
3. If Yes, as per above point no. 2, would you please inform me marks of last selected/appointed Physically Handicapped candidates from "reserve list for physically handicapped (HH/VH/LD etc ) candidates since CSE-2010 to 2016". Please provide name, roll number and marks of each Physically Handicapped category (HH/VH/LD) separately.
4. If No, as per above point no. 2, can you please inform me about the rules, which do not allow/permit to maintain reserve list of physically handicapped candidates?
5. Please inform me how many vacancies created by Physically Handicapped candidates who had resigned/died/joined other services after final selection/allotment of other civil services on the basis of civil services exam since 2010 to 2016? Please provide this information exam year wise / PH category wise along with their name/roll number & final marks in Civil services examination since 2010 to 2016.
6. Does vacancy created after resignation/death/joining of other services by these PH candidates (as per above point 5) has been filled from candidates from reserved list ?
7. If yes, which category candidates (General /OBC/SC/ST/HH/LV/LD etc) are offered these vacant seats/vacancies? Please provide details (name, roll number & final marks) of appointed candidates against these vacancies till date.
8. If NO, as per point no 6, then can you inform me why physically handicapped are not being offered these vacant reserved seats which were created due to resignation/death of physically handicapped candidates?
9. It also come to my notice that many physically handicapped candidates who even don't have 40 % disability got selected in civil services in the basis of fake certificates against reserved seats for physically handicapped candidates. Especially many hearing impaired candidates having disability only 20-30 % got fake certificates. They never use hearing aid and can hear clearly. While rule stipulates minimum 40% disability in better ear. Has DoPT taken any action against these candidates selected on the basis of fake handicapped certificates while they just have 10-20 percent disability? Please also inform me if DoPT now taken any action against these fake selected candidates?
210. I am PH candidate who appeared in civil services from 2010 to 2016. Can you please inform me whether I was allotted any service from "General/Reserve list for PH category candidates" on the basis of Civil Services Exam since 2010 to 2016? My year wise roll number for civil serves is as follows
a)Civil Services Examination 2010 roll no.: 046806
b) Civil Services Examination 2012 roll no.: 262382
c) Civil Services Examination 2013 roll no.: 240610
d) Civil Services Examination 2014 roll no.: 203819
e) Civil Services Examination 2015 roll no.: 0742724
f) Civil Services Examination 2016 roll no.: 0598500
11. Please provide me year wise marks of mains /interview of Civil Services Examination as per above point no. 10 as these information is not available on UPSC website .
12. Is there any backlog vacancy created under PH category (specially hearing handicapped category) since CSE-2010 to CSE-2016? Please mention the name of the appointed applicants against these posts along with CSE roll number, ranks and marks for the above periods.
13. Kindly update my permanent and correspondence address as follows, in your DoPT record against roll no. provided as above ( point no. 10) for future references. So that in future if I got selected from reserve list or upgraded in any service proper communication can be done."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 28.05.2020 stating as follows:-
"..........this CPIO deals with service allocation to the candidates recommended by UPSC on the basis of Civil Services Examination (CSE). CSE Rules including the provisions for reserve list, the marks of recommended candidates by UPSC in CSEs are available on this Departments website at link:
https://cseplus.nic.in.
3. The vacancies for participating services in CSEs are determined by the respective Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCAs) for the services. As such vacancy related information for participating services is not maintained by this CPIO.
4. In case of candidates found furnishing false information/documents, action against such candidates is taken as per CSE Rules.
5. As per available records, your name was not recommended by UPSC in the CSEs as mentioned by you in para 10 of Application.
6. In this context, it may kindly be noted that as per the RTI Act 2005, CPIO is required to provide information as available with him in the form of OM, 3 Notification, rules regulation, orders, letters and circulars etc. Queries/Clarification or interpretation of information is outside the purview of the RTI Act 2005. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.07.2020. FAA's order dated 29.07.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal seeking relief on points 4,5,6,7,8,11 & 12 of the RTI Application.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Shukdeo Sah, US & CPIO along with Anshuman Mishra, US & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he has not received the desired information on points 2-9 of the RTI Application as well as his marks sought for at point 11 and even as he sought the information from UPSC he was not provided the information. Despite repeated queries, the Appellant was unable to refer to the specific records that relate to his correspondence with UPSC.
The CPIO(s) submitted that DoPT does not maintain marks of candidates who are not recommended by USPC and the same was therefore informed to the Appellant and the website link was indicated wherein he can find all the UPSC Civil Services related information.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that while the Appellant categorically sought for relief on points 4,5,6,7,8,11 & 12 of the RTI Application in the grounds of the Second Appeal, during the hearing, he also urged for relief on points 2 & 3.
Now, it is pertinent to note that the information sought for at points 4,6 & 8 of the RTI Application does not warrant any action as the Appellant has sought for 4 clarifications and justifications to be provided by the CPIO and the same is not as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, his 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 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:
5"..... 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) Further, the information sought for at points 3, 5, 7 & 12 seek information related to the marks and other particulars of third parties, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards 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 6 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..."
Having observed as above, the only point for determining relief is point 11 of the RTI Application to which the CPIO has provided a factual reply indicating the unavailability of the information related to the marks obtained by the Appellant and therefore the Commission finds no scope of further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is 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