Central Information Commission
Dr. Sheikh Umar Abas vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 19 November, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/UTOJK/C/2023/640108
Dr. Sheikh Umar Abas निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
UT of Jammu and Kashmir
Date of Hearing : 14.11.2024
Date of Decision : 14.11.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 04.07.2023
PIO replied on : 10.07.2023
First Appeal filed on : - -
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 17.08.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 04.07.2023 seeking information on following points:-
S.No. Particular of the RESPONSE OF THE Information Letters/Communication SKUAST-KASHMIR Need
1. AU/Adm(GAD)/Report(HBM) As per the API Score Please furnish HR/11975-79, Dated: card. The Chapters in rel xx 27/01/2020 addressed Edited Books by the this response toShri Sandeep Wazir, AIG Screening Committee has xx Policy, ACB, UT of JK foraward of marks in case of Dr Abid Sultan andall other candidates across all other posts of Assistant Professor/Jr. Page 1 Scientist as per scaleviz.
Nox0.50 in the light of provision (b(iv) where NAAS Journals ID/Rating is not available (No.x0.50). It is hereby reiterated that same procedure has been applied by the Screening Committe in case of all other candidates keeping into consideration the number of such publications but within the maximum ceiling of 10 marks only.
2. Enquiry report of SKUAST- Book chapters have been Please furnish Committee, Ref.No:AU/ considered in view of rel xx Adm(T)/Enquiry UGC Guidelines having this response Report/22/23702.Dated:04/ ISBN numbers despite has xx 03/202 not having any clause in API Score. The Enquiry Committee of SKUAST-
Khave accepted my
version that Book
Chapters have no clause
in API Scorecard.
3. Enquiry report of SKUAST- Enquiry Committee has Please furnish
Committee, Ref.No:AU/ accepted that Book rel xx
Adm(T)/Enquiry Chapters though not part this response
Report/22/23702.Dated:04/ of the API Score Card has xx
03/202 have been considered in
view of the other
guidelines which cannot
be done selectively for
Book Chapters. The
selection has to be made
as per the
Advertisement/API Score
Card and not as per
other guidelines.
4. RTI response of SKUASTRef Chapters in edited books Please furnish
Page 2
no have been given rel xx
Au/Adm/GAD/2020/17585 maximum score of 0. 50 this response
Dated:18/01/2020 marks per chapter has xx
across the board. Now
here again a different
response that Book
Chapters have been
considered across the
Board.
5. No.An/Adm/GAD/2019/137 In some cases, Edited Please furnish
69, Dated:13/11/2019 books with minimum rel xx
NAAS score of 0.50 was this response
considered as per the has xx
UGC Guidelines which
gives weightage to these
publications. Again a
different response, Book
Chapter is not part of the
advertisement/API Score
Card for Assistant
Professor and hence
cannot be considered.
6. No.An/Adm/GAD/RTI/11031 The Edited book Please furnish
, Dated:31/12/2020 chapters of Dr. Abid rel xx
Sultan were considered this response
for marks strictly as per has xx
scale indicated in the
API score card.
reproduced here under
Where NAAS Journals
ID/Rating is not
available = No. *0.50
marks (1.05*0.5-2.5
marks). The scale viz.
where NAAS Rating
10/Rating is not
available is for research
papers and not for Book
Chapters.
Further, SMVDU has reported that some serious facts about Dr Abid Sultan as indicated in the following table and information regarding these points may also be provided:
Page 3 S.NO Relevant excerpts of SMVDU-Katra report Information needed
7. As per letter no. SMVDU/PIO/2023/33, a. Since Dr. Abid Sultan Dated: 23/01/2023, it has been replied to has committed an act the RTI Applicant namely Dr. Shakeel of misrepresentation, Ahmad Sofi that Mr. Abid Sultan had please inform me the obtained 9.46 CGPA in his Pre-PhD Course rule under Indian Panel Work and not at the end of PhD Code applicable in this Program/Degree. As such, claiming 94.6% case.
and 1 st Division at the end of his PhD is b. Please inform me why nothing but an act of misrepresentation on Dr Abid Sultan has not the part of the said candidate, which needs been terminated in to be looked into/verified by the concerned view of the Institute viz. SKUAST. It is further informed misrepresentation that Mr. Abid Sultan had no occasion to committed by him claim 94.6 % and 1 st Division on his Application Form as SMVDU-Katra does not provide any grades/percentage at the end of PhD Degree. He has himself converted Pre-PhD percentage of 94.6 and 1 st Division into 94.6% and 1 st Division at the end of PhD Degree which is not as per the records of the SMVDU-Katra.
As per letter no.
Au/Adm(GAD)/2019/5182-83, Dated:
20/08/2020 addressed by Assistant Registrar, SKUAST-K to the Registrar SMVDUKatra, the clarification was sought by the SKUASTK regarding conversion of Pre-PhD Coursework percentage into CGPA at the PhD Level for purpose of evaluation of percentage of marks in the API Score Card for direct recruitment. SMVDUKatra has already provided factual position to SKUAST-K vide letter no.
SMVDU/R$D/20/645, Dated: 23/09/2020 that Mr. Abid Sultan had obtained 9.46 CGPA in his PrePhD Course Work and not at the end of PhD Degree. Therefore, the claim of Mr. Abid Sultan specifically on his Application Form as supplemented by the RTI Applicant Dr. Shakeel Ahmad Sofi is nothing but an act of misrepresentation and SKUAST-K had no occasion to consider Page 4 conversion of Pre-PhD Percentage into PhD Level percentage or percentage at the end of PhD as has been claimed by Mr. Abid Sultan on his application form. The responses issued by SMVDU-K cannot be revised or modified as that would against the law and factual position remains that Dr. Abid Sultan has committed an act of misrepresentation so far it relates to his claim of 94.6 % and 1st Division on his application form.
8. And other related information.
The CPIO vide letter dated 10.07.2023 replied as under:-
"With reference to your email dated 04.07.2023, it is to convey that the questions posed by you are interrogative and does not fall within the meaning of "Information" as defined under the provisions of the RTI Act-2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Dr. Shakeel Ahmad Sofi- Authorised Representative of the Complainant- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Javed Ahmad, AR/PIO -participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Authorised representative of the Complainant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished by the PIO till date.
The Respondent stated that relevant information has been duly provided to the Complainant. He further stated that the RTI Applicant has filed numerous RTI Application relating to same issue and complete information has been furnished to the Complainant.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Page 5 Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held Page 6 that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)