Central Information Commission
Gaurab Dutta vs University Grants Commission on 14 July, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/658044
Gaurab Dutta ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
University Grants Commission,
RTI Cell, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110002. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13/07/2021
Date of Decision : 13/07/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14/11/2019
CPIO replied on : 20/11/2019
First appeal filed on : 20/11/2019
First Appellate Authority's order : 26/11/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26/11/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 14.11.2019 seeking the following information:
"1) For the examination UGC- National Eligibility Test, it is mentioned in the eligibility criteria for candidates having Post Graduate Diploma/Certificate as:
Candidates having post-graduate diploma/certificate awarded by Indian University/ Institute or foreign degree/diploma/certificate awarded by the foreign University/institute SHOULD IN THEIR OWN INTEREST, ascertain the equivalence of their diploma/degree/certificate with Masters degree of recognized Indian universities from Association of Indian Universities (AIU), New Delhi. (www.aiu.ac.in) Does the sentence: SHOULD IN THEIR OWN INTEREST: in the above mentioned paragraph mean that it is compulsory to ascertain the equivalence of the diploma/degree/certificate with Masters Degree of recognized Indian Universities from the Association of Indian Universities for appearing in the UGC NET, even if the examination is taken for recruitment in the Public Sector Undertakings."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 20.11.2019 stating as follows:-
Reply :- The eligibility conditions for appearing in NET are absolutely clear. Wherever, NET qualification is a prerequisite for the recruitment/appointment, the eligibility conditions for UGC-NET as mentioned in the Notification for NET are to be fulfilled.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2019. FAA's order dated 26.11.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Rochan Thadani through audio conference. Respondent: Ravinder Singh, US & CPIO present through audio conference.
The representative of the Appellant stated that a specific reply has not been provided to the issue raised in the RTI Application.
The CPIO submitted that adequate clarification was provided to the Appellant in response to the RTI Application. Further, upon a query from the Commission, the CPIO explained that the candidates can check the equivalence of their degree from the website of the Association of the Indian Universities and relevant information in this regard is contained in the eligibility conditions mentioned in the averred UGC notification.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information that has been sought for in the RTI Application as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon as the query raised by the Appellant does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for the interpretation of a particular phrase contained in the averred UGC notification which requires the CPIO to clarify and deduce a speculative query, yet the CPIO has provided a factual reply to the RTI Application and supplemented the same with further clarifications during the hearing which is in keeping with the letter and spirit of RTI Act.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:3
"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.........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. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) ADVISORY A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar nature of cases dealt with by this bench in the recent past is that a number of RTI Applications are being filed for seeking clarifications on the subject of equivalence of degrees in the context of UGC-NET. It will be in the best interest of UGC to explore the viability of introducing a FAQs Section on their website wherein the most commonly sought for clarifications can be identified and relevant information in that regard can be placed in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record.
In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5