RTI Corner

The appellant submitted that the photocopy of his answer sheet of MSc were provided after delay which showed that two of his attempted answers were left unchecked by the invigilator. His request for revaluation was denied. The PIO informed that there is no provision for revaluation in the Byelaws/ rules of the University, and that only re-totaling provision is permitted. The CIC empathized with the concern of the Appellant and advised him to pursue the matter through the administrative mechanism for redressal of his grievance. The CIC noted the absence of a provision for revaluation of answer scripts in the rules/ regulations of the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Gharwal University. The CIC observed that it is the dire need of the educational Institutions/Universities to protect the interest of intended aspirants. Holding that it will be in the best interest of HNBGU to explore the viability of introducing provisions of revaluation facility in the rules/regulations, the CIC directed the PIO to place a copy of the order to the Vice Chancellor, HNBGU to look into the issue in the larger public interest.
Comments
The RTI Act provides for only obtaining information. By issue of an advisory in larger public interest, the CIC has taken an initiative which may change the course of working of many universities like HNBGU.
Citation: Ankit Kumar v. Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Gharwal University in File No : CIC/HNBGU/A/2019/160876, Date of Decision : 06/07/2021
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought for the exact date and time when the file pertaining to the recommendation for issuance of the proclamation of Hon President under Article 356 of the Constitution of vis-à-vis the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir was received in the Secretariat; the exact date and time when the Secretariat put up the said file for the consideration of Hon. President and the exact date and time when Hon. President appended his signature to the Proclamation. Similar information was sought regarding the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 (C.O 272) and the file pertaining to the draft Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019. The information was denied under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act claiming it to be fiduciary. The appellant argued that the date and time of receipt of various files by the President Secretariat is required to be routinely maintained in the dak and file movement register and in the e-office system on a computerised database in real time. After perusal of the records, the CIC observed that it is difficult to comprehend as to how information sought is held in a fiduciary capacity by the President’s Secretariat. The CIC directed the PIO to re-examine the RTI Application and provide an appropriate response strictly in accordance with the provisions.
Comments
The CIC made a categorical observation that it is difficult to comprehend as to how information sought is held in a fiduciary capacity by the President’s Secretariat. With this view, the CIC ought to have taken a final decision on the matter whether to disclose the information rather than sending the matter back to the PIO.
Citation: Shri Venkatesh Nayak v. PIO, President Secretariat in Second Appeal No. CIC/PRSEC/A/2020/675160, Date of Decision: 09.08.2021
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought the copies of all performance reviews carried between Dec. 2012 -March 2014, copies of disagreements submitted and related information from the IAF which was denied u/s 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The applicant submitted that he is not asking for the Appraisal report but the copies of the Performance Review and that he is privy to but does not have any copy of the same. It was informed that the information asked by the applicant belongs to a period when the AR procedure was not completely online. The CIC observed that the information was denied under Sec. 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act in a blanket manner without proper scrutiny of each and every point. The CIC directed that the performance review from Dec. 2012 -March 2014 should be provided to the appellant under the RTI even if not generally given, as he is already privy to the same. The copy of his own disagreement note should also be given. Similarly, all other points onwards should be studied again vis-a –vis the discussions during the hearing and the appellant’s recent submissions and a proper point wise reply be given.
Comments
In the matter of Dev Dutt v. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ruled that the Appraisal report of defense personnel are not liable to be disclosed under RTI Act.
Citation: Kunal Kumra v. Directorate of Personal Services, Air Head Quarters in File no.: - CIC/IAIRF/A/2019/134503, Date of Decision: 08/07/202
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant sought a copy of his service book which was not provided to him by the then CPIO. He further contested that his service book was available in the Institute at time of filing of RTI Application, however, perhaps it appears to have been misplaced from the records or is available with the other Institute. The CPIO, enlightened the CIC with the fact that there 28 Institutes including that of Appellant’s Institute which are governed by Ranlaxmi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and get grants in aid. The PIO submitted that as on date the Appellant is himself working as an acting Principal as also he is the designated CPIO of the concerned Institute from where he has sought a copy of his service book. Upon a query from the CIC, the Appellant answered in affirmative that he is the designated CPIO in the said Institute. The CIC held that the Appellant being the current designated CPIO of the Institute can call for the service book/ record of his own from the Institute itself which is the custodian of his service record. The CIC directed the CPIO, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan to trace the records and procure a copy of the Appellant’s own Service book from the office records of the Institute. In the event of the service book not available with the said Institute, the CPIO, Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan may find out and procure the same from the concerned Institute/ record holder where it is available.
Comments
Copy of the service book cannot be denied to the person to whom it pertains to under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Citation: Anil anand v. Shri Ranlaxmi Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya in File No : CIC/RSSAN/A/2019/160412 & CIC/RSSAN/A/2019/659686, Date of Decision : 07/07/2021
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com