CIC,New Delhi, in one of its decision has held that one can not enquire from Public Authorty if particular decision/order passed by it is in the larger interest of public as it is in the nature of seeking explanation and hence it does not qualify to be information under section 2(f) if RTI,2005
Can you please give the reference of the CIC decision or upload the full decision here ?
Order in Case No.CIC/AT/A/2007/01141
Hearing Held on 28-01-08
The order of the Commission is as follows.
Parties were called for a hearing on 28-01-2008. The apellant(Shri P.K.Pahuja) was absent while the respondents were represented by the CPIO
2. A perusal of e second-appeal petition of the appellant shows that he had filed his RTI request dated 3-04-07 before CPIo who hadprovided him all information except in respect of items 3 & 4 of the Appellant's RTI request. Thse itesm read as follows
" 3. Number of regular vacancies in th post of Sr.Clerk occured during the each calender year commencing from 1996 & 1997 and mode of their filling with the details of incumbents may kindly be indicated
4. Specific reasonsmay kindly beindicated for superseding Shri P.K.Pahuja, while promoting Smt. P.Bachandani to the post of Sr.Clerk on adhoc basis from 05-12-1996. A S.S.C. qualified employee was preferred over a graduate employee while awarding adho promotion evern though gradute employee was senior one and available at the same station. kindly indicate if such a discrimination was gender based"
3.After hearing the respondents, it was noted that as regards iem 3, they have furnished to the appellant the details of vacancies occurred only for the ear 1006-1997, whereas the appellant had requested for vacancies occurred in each calender year from 1006-97.
4. Respondents habve no difficuculty in furnishing th balance infromation.
5. It is therefore directed that the information may be furnished to the appellant within 4 weeks from th date of the receipt of this order.
6.As regards items 4 and others points made y the appeallant in this appeal petition -whether "the move of the CPIO (for superseding the Senior official against the guidlines framed by the DOPT) was in the larger public interest" do not qualify to be "infrmation under section2(f) of the RTI Act, being in th nature of seeking explanation from the respondents for therir action. 7. It is therefore directed that no infromation need be furnished as regards these queries.
8. The appeal is disposed with these direction.