Understanding how your Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) is assessed is crucial for career growth in government service. If you’ve ever wondered about the weightage given to remarks from different reporting officers in your APAR, an RTI application might be your answer. This case highlights how the Right to Information Act can be used to seek clarity on such assessments, even when the information isn’t readily available in a specific format. Let’s explore what happened and what you can learn.
Background: What Information Was Sought
The appellant, a government employee, was concerned about the final assessment in her APAR. She believed that remarks from three different Reporting Officers (ROs) under whom she had served during the same year should be considered. To get clarity, she first wrote to the concerned authority, requesting these assessments. When that didn’t fully satisfy her, she filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005. Her RTI application specifically asked: 1. Whether assessments from three other ROs were obtained. 2. The weightage accorded to each of these ROs’ remarks in arriving at the final, composite assessment. 3. If assessments were received but not considered before the composite assessment was finalized. She was dissatisfied with the initial response from the Public Information Officer (PIO) and felt the information provided was insufficient. In her second appeal to the Central Information Commission (CIC), she submitted a detailed format in which she wanted the weightages from the three officers to be clearly listed out.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the appellant with the specific breakdown of weightage she was seeking. While the PIO likely provided some information regarding the APAR, it did not meet the appellant’s expectation of a quantified weightage for each reporting officer’s input. This led to the appellant escalating the matter to the First Appellate Authority and subsequently to the Central Information Commission (CIC) through a second appeal, indicating a perceived inadequacy or lack of transparency in the information provided public authority.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing at the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant reiterated her request for a detailed breakdown of the weightage assigned to the remarks of the three reporting officers in her APAR. She had even prepared a specific format to present this information. The Public Authority, through its PIO, likely argued that the information, as requested in that specific format, was not maintained or was not something they were obligated to create. The CIC, in its deliberation, referred to a significant judgment Delhi High Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission versus Ran Vijay Singh (dated 24.4.12). This judgment is pivotal in understanding the scope of an RTI applicant’s rights and a public authority’s obligations.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC, citing the Delhi High Court’s ruling, ultimately rejected the appellant’s appeal. The core of the CIC’s decision was that the RTI Act, 2005 does not compel a public authority to create information that does not already exist or to analyze, study, or arrange existing information in a manner desired applicant. The court’s observation, adopted CIC, stated that a public authority is not obliged to act like a statistician, dissecting and re-presenting data in a format specifically demanded applicant. Therefore, while the information about the APAR itself might be available, the specific quantified weightage from each reporting officer, if not explicitly recorded or compiled in that manner, could not be mandated under RTI. The CIC emphasized that the obligation is to provide information that is held, possessed, or controlled public authority, not to generate new formats or analyses.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Understand Information Availability: The RTI Act mandates access to information that a public authority *holds, possesses, or controls*. It does not require them to create new records or analyze existing ones in a specific format you desire. Before filing, consider if the information you seek is likely to be recorded in the way you are asking.
- Lesson 2: Respect PIO’s Role and Limitations: While PIOs are obligated to provide information, they are not required to interpret, analyze, or present data in a manner beyond their record-keeping capabilities. If the information isn’t explicitly documented in the format you request, the PIO may not be able to fulfill your request precisely as you envision.
- Lesson 3: Focus on Factual Information: RTI is most effective when seeking factual, existing information. Requests that require analysis, opinion, or the creation of new comparative data might be difficult to pursue successfully under the Act, as demonstrated in this case.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or office is responsible for maintaining your APAR and related assessment records.
- Draft Your RTI Application Carefully: Clearly state the information you are seeking. Instead of demanding a specific format or analysis, ask for the records or documents that contain the information. For instance, ask for copies of the assessment reports from the reporting officers.
- Reference Relevant Sections (If Applicable): While not always necessary, if you know specific rules or guidelines govern the APAR assessment process, you might refer to them.
- Be Prepared for Different Responses: Understand that you might receive information in its existing format, or you might be informed that the specific breakdown you seek is not maintained. You can then decide on your next steps, which might include an appeal if you believe information is being wrongly denied.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide a copy of the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period [mention the period] and any supporting documents or records that detail the assessments or remarks made reporting officers who evaluated my performance during this period. Also, please provide any official guidelines or policies that outline the process for consolidating these remarks into a final assessment.
Conclusion
This case serves as an important reminder of the boundaries of the RTI Act. While the Act is a powerful tool for transparency and accountability, it operates within the framework of information that public authorities already possess. For employees seeking to understand the nuances of their APAR assessments, filing an RTI application to request the underlying records and any applicable guidelines is a valid first step. While direct quantification of weightage might not always be achievable if not explicitly recorded, obtaining the raw assessment remarks can still provide valuable insights into how your performance was evaluated. Always aim for clarity and realism in your RTI requests to maximize your chances of success.
