Central Information Commission
Manmohan Bajpal vs Union Public Service Commission on 31 August, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2016/290778/MP
Appellant : Shri Manmohan Bajpai, Lucknow
Public Authority : Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : August 23, 2017
Date of Decision : August 31, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Shri R. Sathyanarayanan, Deputy Secretary (Rectt.
II), Shri Nishant Sharma, ASO [R (C&P) Section] -
at CIC
RTI application : 21.4.2016
CPIO's reply : 23.5.2016
First appeal : 30.5.2016
FAA's order : 13.6.2016
Second appeal : 22.6.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Manmohan Bajpai, the appellant, sought the certified copy of UPSC's Circular No. F. 16/11(6)/2004-R (C&P), dated 4.1.2005; whether or not directions of the Supreme Court in W.P. (Civil) 116 of 1998, dated 26.03.2014, were being followed by the Commission with respect to Unreserved Physically handicapped (UR-PH) category candidates without any discrimination; whether or not the Commission was bound to adhere to the fundamental rights as laid down in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of UR-PH category; etc., through six points.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) advised the appellant to deposit the requisite fees under the RTI Act, 2005, so as to enable him to send the information contained in 18 pages to the appellant on points (i) and (iv) of his RTI application. The CPIO further informed the appellant that the UPSC was mandated to conduct exam for appointments to the services of the Union and matters relating to the methods of recruitments was contained in the provisions of Article 320 of the Constitution of India and that the UPSC followed instructions issued by DoPT that were available on the DoPT's website. The appellant deposited the requisite fees as directed by the CPIO, however, not satisfied with the CPIO's response to points 2, 3, 5 and 6 of his RTI application, he approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a request to specifically provide information relating to the provisions made for blind candidates of Unreserved category by UPSC and additionally sought to know the reasons for not giving relaxation to the appellant in marks secured by him for SAO-II examination. The FAA, while upholding the decision of the CPIO, informed the appellant that the CPIO was supposed to provide only the existing and available information to the appellant under the RTI Act, 2005. Aggrieved, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission with a request to direct the CPIO to provide correct and complete information on points 2, 3, 4B and 6 of his RTI application.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he was physically handicapped and sought to know the reasons as to why UPSC had not implemented the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in W.P. (Civil) 116 of 1998, dated 26.03.2014, with respect to Unreserved Physically handicapped (UR-PH) category candidates.
4. The respondent stated that the CPIO had, vide reply dated 23.5.2016, already informed that UPSC was mandated to conduct exam for appointments to the services of the Union and was only to be consulted on matters relating to the methods of recruitments as per the provisions contained in Article 320 of the Constitution of India. Further, the queries raised by the appellant in his RTI application were matters of interpretation and the CPIO was not supposed to interpret under the RTI Act, 2005. The respondents further explained that the appellant had already filed a writ petition in that regard before the Lucknow bench of Uttar Pradesh High Court which had also been dismissed by the Court in 2016.
5. The Commission, on hearing both the parties and perusing the available records, observes that the CPIO has appropriately responded to the appellant and provided the available information, as per the records. The Commission further observes that the appellant had mostly sought explanation/clarifications from the CPIO and the CPIO is not expected to provide the same under the RTI Act, 2005. A public authority is supposed to provide only the existing and available information to the applicant, held by it or under its control. In the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO, SEBI (decision dated January 17, 2013), the Hon'ble CIC had held that:
"... we would also like to observe that, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the citizen has the responsibility to specify the exact information he wants; he is not supposed to seek any opinion or comments or clarifications or interpretations from the CPIO...".
Further, in the matter of Shri Amin Merchant vs. Department Of Revenue (Tax Research Unit) (decision dated May 18, 2009), the Hon'ble CIC had held that:
"RTI-requests, which are aimed at seeking explanations from the public authority about 'hows' and 'whys' of their decisions, do not qualify as 'information' u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act."
The appellant appeared to have a grievance and he may like to make a representation/complaint before the appropriate authority. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Union Public Service Commission, Union Public Service Commission, Deputy Secretary, Joint Secretary (R.II), R (C&P) Section, Dholpur House, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110 069 New Delhi - 110 069 Shri Manmohan Bajpai, D - 2158, Indira Nagar, Lucknow (UP) - 226 016