Appellant wanted to know whether the placement in the AAO’s grade will be counted towards the consideration of MACP in future & the copy of supportive rules - PIO: query is clarificatory in nature - CIC: appeal rejected

ORDER

1. Through his RTI application dated 21.12.12, appellant has cited an example of an employee working in a particular Pay Band with grade pay and has requested to know what entry pay the pay band should be granted on passing the Limited Departmental Test of AAO in light of DoPT’s OM (give particulars & date of thro. He has also requested to furnish a copy of supportive rules. The appellant has also requested to know whether the placement in the AAO’s grade will be counted towards the consideration of MACP in future and requested to be provided the copy of supportive rules in that regard.

2. CPIO has furnished his response on 22.1.13 through which he has informed the appellant that the instructions of OM dated 30.3.10 issued by them are specific to candidates working in PSU, Universities, Semi Govt, Institutions or autonomous bodies who are appointed as DRs on selection through interviews by properly constituted agency. They have informed the appellant that to address the situational query raised in point no.1 of his RTI application a formal reference can be made to them through the concerned administrative authority. Through another response, dated 28.12.12, CPIO has informed the appellant that the information sought at point no.2 of his RTI application is clarificatory in nature.

3. Not being satisfied with the response of the CPIO, appellant preferred a first appeal under Section 19(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act, 2005 through his letter dated 14.2.13. In his order dated 21.2.13, FAA agreed with the response of the CPIO.

4. During the hearing, with respect to point nos. 1 &2 of his RTI application, appellant submits that he has not received a response to point no.2 of his RTI application, though it is informed that another CPIO has responded to the said query. Respondent submits that the OM referred by the appellant deals with pay fixation of persons who are recruited from PSUs to Government jobs. Respondent also submits that the points raised by the appellant in second appeal were not raised at the first appeal stage. Commission is of the view that appellant has asked hypothetical questions in his RTI application which is not covered with the definition of “information” as defined in 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; of the RTI Act, 2005. He has quoted the DoPT’s OM and has sought to obtain clarification. Therefore, the response of the CPIO that the information sought by the appellant is clarificatory in nature is held to be correct. However, since the copy of the second response of the CPIO has not been received by the appellant, Commission, hereby, directs the respondent CPIO to furnish a copy of the reply to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of this order.

(Sushma Singh)

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Brijesh Sharma v. Department of Personnel and Training in Case No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000841/SS