Central Information Commission
Rana Gopal Chakraborty vs Tripura University on 31 August, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Case No. CIC/TRUNV/A/2016/291624/MP
Appellant. : Shri Rana Gopal Chakraborty, Agartala.
Public Authority : Tripura University, Agartala.
Date of Hearing : 25th August, 2017.
Date of Decision : 30th August, 2017.
Present
Appellant : Present through VC.
Respondent : Dr. Abhijit Choudhary, Asstt. Registrar/
ACPIO through VC.
RTI application : 06.04.2016
CPIO's reply : No response.
First Appeal : 12.05.2016
FAA's order : 09.06.2016
Second Appeal : 24.06.2016
Information Commissioner : Manjula Prasher
ORDER
1. The appellant, Shri Rana Gopal Chakraborty submitted RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Tripura University, Tripura seeking to know whether the Tripura University was aware of the notification dated 10.06.2015 issued by Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education which lays down that ODL courses done from various UGC recognized Universities were deemed to be treated as recognized for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government; whether notifications dated 15th and 16th March,2016 of Tripura University contravene the notification dated 10.06.2015 of MHRD 1 as nowhere in the MHRD notification dated 10.6.2015,it has been stated that 'off campus study in ODL mode' cannot be recognized for the purpose of Central Government employment; whether Tripura University had received copy of UGC circular bearing No. UGC/DEB/2013 dated 14.10.2013; whether the above mentioned notifications dated 15th and 18th March, 2016 of Tripura University contravene the UGC circular whether the University received any communication from MHRD/UGC/any other higher authority asking the Tripura University for not allowing the candidates to appear in the written examination to be held for the purpose of employment who had acquired their required qualification through off campus centres of different universities in ODL mode; the number of candidates being debarred from appearing in the examination for final selection of Group C posts in connection with Tripura University Advt. No. TU/03/2014 dated 14.11.2014 on the ground that they had not acquired their required qualification from IGNOU/Tripura University; whether any candidate who had acquired qualification through distance education mode/ODL mode from theuniversities other than IGNOU/Tripura University had been issued admit card or allowed to face the recruitment process in connection with Tripura University Advertisement dated 14.11.2014 and 02.09.2013 etc. through ten points.
2. Not having received any response from the CPIO the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority (FAA). The FAA sent a point-wise reply to the appellant.
3. Not satisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission stating that the information sought was not provided by the CPIO and the FAA had without any hearing, supplied inadequate information and also hidden the fact in respect of points 7, 9 and 10 of the RTI application.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that as the CPIO had not replied to his RTI application, then he preferred an appeal before the FAA. The FAA had provided him incomplete information. The FAA had not provided information on points 6 and 7 by invoking the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and on point 9 the FAA informed that the information as sought was not maintained by the University. The respondent stated that the University did not maintain 2 records about the debarred candidates for appearing in the written examination as sought by the appellant on point 9, and the University only had the records of eligible candidates.
5. Having considered the submissions of both the parties, the Commission observes that the appellant had sought clarification/interpretation of by enclosing copy of the UGC circular No. F.9-8/2008(CPP-I dated 16.04.2009 on point 6 which did not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, therefore, holds that as per Section 2(f) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the respondent authority is supposed to provide information which is held or under the control of the public authority, as held by the Hon'ble Court of India in the matter of CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyaya & Ors held that "35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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". The Commission upholds the decision of the FAA on point 6.
6. The Commission observes that the appellant had sought specific information on points 7 whether Tripura University had received any communication from MHRD/UGC/any other higher authority asking the Tripura University for not allowing the 3 candidates to appear in the written examination to be held for the purpose of employment who had acquired their qualification trough off campus centres of different universities in ODL mode and directs the CPIO to provide clear reply to the appellant within two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The Commission further observes that the CPIO had failed to respond to the RTI application of the appellant and directs the then CPIO to submit his explanation to the Commission for not responding to the RTI application of the appellant within two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri Rana Gopal Chakraborty, The Central Public Information Officer, Advocate, Tripura High Court Bar Tripura University, Association, High Court Complex, Suryamaninagar, Tripura West, New Capital Complex, Agartala-799022 (Tripura). Agartala-799010 (Tripura) The First Appellate Authority, Tripura University, Suryamaninagar, Tripura West, Agartala-799022 (Tripura).4