The main legal point established in the judgment is that the PIO is not required to deduce conclusions from the material and supply them to the applicant, as per the provisions of Section 2(f) & (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Present Petitioner has filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India laying challenge to the impugned order dated 31.08.2010 passed by the State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh, in Appeal No. 115 of 2010-11, whereby, PIO-cum-Joint Secretary (Health) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh has been directed to send a revised reply to the appellant covering all the seven questions of the RTI application within 15 days on receipt of the order under intimation to the State Information Commission.

2. Briefly stated facts as emerged from the record are that respondent No. 1, namely, Archit Sant filed an application before the Public Information Officer (PIO)-cum-Joint Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and sought following information:-

“1. Are these MBBS appointee is a government employee?

2. Is their contract has not been made with the Governor or Secretary (Health) of the State if not why (give reason) and with whom it has been made?

3. Is these appointees has authorised to cut MLC's & to done postmortem?

4. Is these appointees has the attestation power? If yes then there name has been mentioned on the official gazette?

5. Why the government is not appointing MBBS doctors through commission? (give reason).

6. Is the Ayurvedic doctors are also appointing under this society or through commission? If through commission so why this discrimination is in the appointment?

7. What are the grade/class of these appointee doctors?”

3. Pursuant to aforesaid application, present petitioner vide communication dated 18.05.2010 informed respondent that the answers sought for vide application are not covered by the expression “Right to Information” as defined under Section 2 (f) & (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 read with letter No. Per (AR) A (3)-1/2008-I, dated 06.09.2008 circulated by the ARO, Government of H.P., wherein, the PIO is required to supply the material in the form as held by the public authority and is not required to deduce anything from the material and then supply it to him/her. However, Public Information Officer-cum-Joint Secretary (Health) to the Government of H.P. advised applicant/respondent that in case, he has any grievance, he can sent representation to the competent/appropriate authority for the redressal of the same. Besides above, present petitioner also informed applicant/respondent that appointments of medical officers in the Health Department of Himachal Pradesh are being made through Rogi Kalyan Samities and copy of RKS policy alongwith contract agreement signed between RKS and concerned M.O. alongwith terms and conditions was also made available to him. The information as provided by PIO-cum-Joint Secretary (Health) to the Govt. of H.P. is reproduced here-in-below:-

“Please refer to your application dated 30th March, 2010, on the subject cited above. It is informed that the answers sought for d not cover by the expression “right to Information” as defined under Section 2(f) & (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 read with letter No. Per (AR) A (3)-1/2008-1, dated 6th September, 2008/circulated by the ARO, government of H.P. According to this letter/instructions the PIO is required to supply the material in the form as held by the public authority and is not required to deduce anything from the material and then supply it to him/her. However, if, you have any grievance you can sent representation to the competent/appropriate authority for the redressal of the same. Moreover, it is worthwhile to mention, here that the appointments of medical officers in the Health Department of Himachal Pradesh are being made through Rogi Kalyan Samities. The copy of RKS policy (five pages) and the copy of contract agreement which is signed between RKS and concerned MO alongwith terms & conditions (3 pages) are enclosed herewith.

If you are not satisfied with the above, you have the right to prefer an appeal before