RTI Act does not require public authorities to provide opinions, clarifications, inferences, or advice beyond material in records.

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Copy of the letter dated 23/02/2022 issued by Assistant Commissioner (Estt.II/III) vide which delegated the power to Deputy Commissioner KVS RO Bhubaneswar in terms of Para 12 of KVS transfer guidelines 2021.

(ii) 2. Whether the Deputy Commissioner KVS RO Jaipur has been delegated any power under para 12 of KVS transfer guideline 2021 by KVS headquarter New Delhi to transfer any teacher of Kendriya Vidyalaya under KVS RO Jaipur during the year 2023. If yes, a copy of the same may please be provided.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Point No. (ii): The Commissioner, KVS in exercise of the powers under para 12 of the Transfer Guidelines of KVS has already been delegated the powers of transfer to all the Deputy Commissioner of the Regional Offices in respect of employees of KVS serving under their region on the following grounds vide Office Order F.No.11019/2/2011-KVSHQ(E-3) dated 24/01/2012 (copy enclosed): -

1. Posting of staff on joining after long leave/deputation.

2. Transfer of the staff on administrative grounds under para 7(e).

3. Posting of staff after revocation of suspension.

A copy of Para-12 of KVS Transfer Guidelines is also enclosed.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.05.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 31.05.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.06.2023.

5. The appellant attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Administration Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished by the CPIO was not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to furnish the information, as sought.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application had been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 01.05.2023, wherein, available information had been provided to the appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought clarification and opinion, which do not fall within the definition of “information” as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011. The following was thus held:

“….A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority.……”

9. However, the CPIO has provided available information to the appellant vide letter dated 01.05.2023, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.