Central Information Commission
Lokendra vs Railway Board on 15 July, 2020
CIC/RAILB/A/2018/630862
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RAILB/A/2018/630862
In the matter of:
Lokendra ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The Central Public Information
Officer (CPIO),
Railway Recruitment Board
Allahabad,
Allahabad ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 08.07.2018 FA : 02.08.2018 SA : 10.09.2018
CPIO : 02.08.2018 FAO : 28.08.2018 Hearing :10.07.2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over the phone
Respondent: Shri Surender Kumar, Member Secretary, Railway Recruitment
Board Allahabad, Allahabad, heard over the phone
Page 1 of 7
CIC/RAILB/A/2018/630862
ORDER
Information Sought:
The appellant filed an online RTI application on 08.07.2018 seeking information on four points regarding the railway result of all the 3059 empanelled candidates along with their percentage of marks in II stage of Computer Based Test (CBT) in four columns under notice no. 03/2005/NTPC(Gr.), including;
1. To provide roll no. of the candidates.
2. To provide marks before normalization of the II stage CBT in percentage (out of 100).
3. To provide marks after normalization of the II stage CBT in percentage (out of 100).
4. To provide date and shift of the II CBT exam.
Further, appellant also sought the number of candidates whose marks after normalization were increased against marks before normalization and who were selected under traffic apprentice post and commercial apprentice post.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 02.08.2018, denied disclosure of information under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005. With regard to point nos. 1 to 4, CPIO stated that normalization of marks is done on statistical formula approved by Railway Board. Further, the question booklet, response given by the candidates, answer sheets, normalized marks secured in second stage of CBT and overall rank plus cut of marks were available on website of RRB, Allahabad with effect from 25.05.2017 to 30.05.2017, which can be access by all the candidates. Being dissatisfied, appellant filed a first appeal dated Nil. FAA, vide order dated 28.08.2018, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Page 2 of 7CIC/RAILB/A/2018/630862 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the respondent has, with malafide intent, invoked Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act for denying requisite information to the appellant. He further submitted that vide his RTI application in question, he had merely sought roll no. wise marks of 3059 empanelled candidates and no personal information, whatsoever, of the said candidates was sought for. He further apprised the Commission that the Railway Recruitment Board consists of several Boards and cut-off marks for each board are different. After the receipt of CPIO's reply in the instant matter, he filed another RTI application to RRB, Trivandrum seeking similar information for 74 empanelled candidates which was duly provided by the CPIO, RRB, Trivandrum. In response to a query, the appellant submitted that he also appeared as a candidate in CBT, as stated in the RTI application. Since his marks were not increased after normalization, he had sought the marks of those candidates who were empanelled after the increase in their marks post normalization.
The respondent submitted that a total of 34910 candidates appeared in CBT II and marks of all these candidates were normalized. Although the data of 34910 candidates are available with the respondent, the data of 3059 candidates, as sought by the appellant, are not available in the desired format. Further, sorting and compiling of the data of 3059 candidates would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. The respondent also offered the appellant Page 3 of 7 CIC/RAILB/A/2018/630862 to obtain the marks of all 34910 candidates. The appellant, however, denied the same. With respect to invoking Section 8(1)(j), the respondent submitted that answer sheets of other candidates constitute their personal information. Thus, the information was denied as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The respondent furthermore submitted that he was not bound by the reply of the CPIO of another department or authority and was only acting as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
The written submissions dated 07.072020 filed by the respondent were taken on record.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, refers to the decision dated 09.08.2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) wherein it was held as under:
"35......... 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...............
37. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged Page 4 of 7 CIC/RAILB/A/2018/630862 down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace; tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Further, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011] had held as under:
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
Thus, at the outset, it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. In Page 5 of 7 CIC/RAILB/A/2018/630862 view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
अिमता पांडव)
Amita Pandove (अिमता व
Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु )
दनांक / Date: 10.07.2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26105027
Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA),
Ministry of Railway,
Railway Recruitment Board Allahabad,
Near Railway Hospital,
Subedarganj, Prayag Raj
(Allahabad)-211011.
Page 6 of 7
CIC/RAILB/A/2018/630862
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Railway, Railway Recruitment Board Allahabad, Near Railway Hospital, Subedarganj, Prayag Raj, Allahabad - 211011
3. Shri Lokendra Page 7 of 7