The RTI Act does not require public authorities to provide clarifications or interpretations of information requests.

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:

 Under the Right to Information Act, 2005 , I request you to provide information related to the withdrawal of No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued to government servants who apply for another government job. Specifically, I am seeking information regarding the following details:

1. In cases where a government servant's request for an NOC to appear in an examination for another government position has been approved, but the candidate does not attend the examination, what are the provisions or policies regarding the withdrawal of the NOC?

2. Is there any provision for an automatic cancellation or withdrawal of the NOC if the candidate does not appear for the examination?

3. If the candidate was on official duty on the day of the examination, as proven by biometric attendance records, does this affect the NOC status or require any additional procedure from the candidate or the department for withdrawal of the NOC?

4. Please provide any official guidelines, circulars, or office memorandums outlining the process and conditions for withdrawal of an NOC in such scenarios?

5. Is there any specific action that the government servant or their department must take to formally cancel or notify the non-utilization of the NOC?

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“As per the Right to Information Act, 2005 , a CPIO is required to provide information as available with him in the form of OM, Notification, Rules, Regulations, Orders, Letters and Circulars etc. Queries/ Clarification or interpretation of information is outside the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information.

In response to your query, you may refer to this Department OM dated 24.11.2022 regarding NOC/Forwarding of Applications. The said OM is self-explanatory. This OM is available in public domain and can be accessed on the following web link: https://dopt.gov.in - OMs - Resignation.

The Appellate Authority in the above matter is Shri G.K. Rajnish, Deputy Secretary, (Personnel Policy) Room No. 278-C, Department of Personnel &

Training, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi.

It is informed that the instructions issued by this Department are applicable to Central Govt civilian Employees and posts. These are not directly/suo-moto applicable to autonomous Bodies, State Govts, PSUs Trusts and Banks etc. which are governed by their own set of rules/regulations”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.11.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 06.12.2024 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 08.12.2024.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through audio conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Rohit Kumar, Under Secretary, attended the hearing in-person.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that sought information had not been provided and no information was available on the weblink furnished by the CPIO in his reply.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that through the queries raised in the RTI application the appellant was seeking clarification regarding NOC, which were not covered within the definition of “information” under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. However, a weblink for relevant OM dated 24.11.202 regarding NOC had been provided to the appella