Information regarding recruitment in the Air Force School - PIO: It relates to various Non public Funds, not a pubic authority u/s 2(h) - CIC: Access the information if available, and provide it; Provide a categorical reply if they cannot access this info

Information Sought:

The Appellant has sought the following information with regard to recruitment in the Air Force School, Chandigarh:

1. Provide total number of vacancies in the year 2018 for the post of PRT.

2. Provide details of vacancies reserved for any class of persons/candidates for the aforesaid post.

3. Provide details of persons who have been selected for the said post in the year 2018.

4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal

CPIO has denied the information u/s 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; of the RTI Act, 2005.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant had stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to him. The CPIO reiterated the contents of his reply dated 15.02.2019.

Observations:

From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is seen that the CPIO in his reply had clearly stated that the information sought relates to various Non public Funds, which are not pubic authority as defined in Sec 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; of the RTI Act. It may be noted that as per 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 the definition of the term ‘information’ includes such information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any prevalent law in force; it follows then that if information on the said points is available with the Respondent office or can be accessed from NPFs the CPIO should share that information. The CPIO is therefore directed to access the sought for information if available, and provide the same to the appellant and in case they cannot access this information, a categorical reply should be given to the appellant.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Pankaj Sharma v. Indian Air Force in File No.: - CIC/IAIRF/A/2019/123591, Date of Decision: 26/04/2021