Central Information Commission
Chandrasekhar Kuruva vs Staff Selection Commission on 2 June, 2021
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/SSCOM/A/2019/649815
Chandrasekhar Kuruva ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Staff Selection Commission,
RTI Cell, Southern Region, 2nd
Floor, EVK Sampath Building,
College Road, Chennai - 600006. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/06/2021
Date of Decision : 02/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25/07/2019
CPIO replied on : 02/08/2019
First appeal filed on : 02/08/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 14/08/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02/09/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 25.07.2019 seeking the following information:
"I have appeared for SSC CGL Tier (IV) Examination 2017 at Redsun Soft Tech Pvt Ltd as part of Batch No. VIIB at 01.30 PM on 24.07.2019 against Roll No. 8007019806.
2. The candidature in respect of me has been rejected with the following reason: Date of discharge for ex-serviceman after the stipulated date fixed for the examination and overage under respective category.
Under which clause of SSC CGL 2017 Notification my candidature has been rejected when I am fulfilling all the criteria mandated by Notification ibid as given below;
(a) I am an ex-serviceman candidate who has served in Indian Navy from 31 Jan 2001 to 31 Jul 2018.
(b) I have completed my specified term of engagement on 31 Jan 2016 against 16.06.2018 which is mandated vide para 5 F of Notification ibid. I was on extended period of engagement with Indian Navy upto 31 Jul 2018.
(c) Form of Certificate as mandated in Annexure IV of Notification ibid is obtained by me from the Commanding Officer.
(d) While filling Online Application for SSC CGL 2017, the details such as Date of Discharge 31 Jul 2018 and length of service as on that date 16 years were mentioned and the same was submitted online successfully.
(e) In spite of being submitted all the documentary evidence to the Document Verification authorities as mandated in the SSC CGL Notification 2017, my candidature was rejected saying as there is no option in the software to proceed further after entering Date of Discharge as 31 Jul 2018, whereas para 5 F of Notification ibid is mandating 16.07.2018 as the crucial date for those who have not completed specified term of engagement with Armed Forces. In my case I have completed specified Term of Engagement and was on Extended Period of Engagement."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the appellant on 02.08.2019 stating as under:-
"Point No. 1& 2:- No information sought Your candidature has been rejected as per Para 5(F) read with Explanation under Para 5(F) of the Recruitment Notice of CGLE 2017.
(a) to (e) No information sought."2
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.08.2019. FAA's order dated 14.08.2019 stated that information sought is not as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: SR Latha Madhukar, AD & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with respect to the rejection of his candidature in the averred recruitment exam and sought for the intervention of the Commission in redressing the grievance.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant was provided with adequate clarification regarding his grievance and the relevant clause under the Recruitment notice along with the explanation was also indicated in their reply. She further supplemented her reply by explaining the import of the averred clause of the recruitment notice to the Appellant.
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO in as much as despite the fact that the information sought for by the Appellant did not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the CPIO addressed the concern raised in the RTI Application in keeping with the letter and spirit 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.3
It will be relevant here to cite certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act. The relevant extracts of the said judgments are reproduced hereunder:
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] 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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:4
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"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, 5 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) Adverting the aforesaid discussion on Section 2(f) and the fact that irrespective of the defect in the RTI Application, the CPIO has extensively reflected on the queries of the RTI Application and provided an appropriate reply.
In view of the foregoing observations, no action is warranted in the matter. However, the Appellant is advised to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievance.
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 / 6