Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Alok Kumar vs University Grants Commission on 31 March, 2021

Author: Saroj Punhani

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                                   के ीयसूचनाआयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                               बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No : CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/642979


Alok kumar                                                ......अपीलकता/Appellant



                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम


CPIO,
CPP-II,
University Grants Commission,
RTI Cell, BahadurShahZafar
Marg, New Delhi 110002                              .... ितवादीगण /Respondent



Date of Hearing                    :   31/03/2021
Date of Decision                   :   31/03/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :             Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:


RTI application filed on           :   08/03/2019
CPIO replied on                    :   10/05/2019
First appeal filed on              :   01/05/2019


                                         1
 First Appellate Authority order   :   14/06/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   14/06/2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 08.03.2019 seeking information on seven following points;

"1. Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Bihar is a university recognized by UGC or otherwise.

2. Any Graduate Degree, Post Graduate Degree, Master Degree, Post Graduate Diploma provided by Magadh university is recognized by UGC or otherwise.

3. Whether UGC have given mandate to Magadh university to run Graduate Degree, Post Graduate Degree, Master Degree, Post Graduate Diploma courses or otherwise.

4. What is the structure of education system hierarchy like Primary education then secondary education than graduation than post graduation/master then Ph.D or otherwise? Where does PG diploma comes under this hierarchy before post graduation degree or after the same.

5. The degree namely MHRM provided by Lalit Narayan Mishra Institute of Economic Development and Social change, an autonomous institute under Magadh university is recognized by UGC or otherwise.

6. Which is higher education, 2 year pg diploma in PMIR or MHRM provided by Magadh University.

7. Vide a Gazette notification dated July 5, 2014, the UGC has given specification of nomenclature of degrees at UG and PG levels. But nothing is mentioned about Master of Human Recourse Management (MHRM) that it will be re-structured as which nomenclature of degree. Whether this degree is valid as MBA (HR) or MBA (HRD) or otherwise."

The CPIO furnished reply to the appellant on 10.05.2019 against point Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.03.2019. FAA's order dated 14.06.2019 stated as under:-

Point No. 2 & 3:-"A statutory university can run degree programme in accordance with UGC regulations prescribed on specification of degrees, which are available on UGC website. Diploma courses are not specified by UGC but a statutory university can run diploma courses with its governing council and as well as norms laid by the statutory council, if any."

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through audio conference.

Respondent: Umakant Balooni, US & CPIO present through audio conference.

Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the CPIO's reply in response to points no. 4, 5 and 7 of the RTI application.

CPIO submitted that an initial reply has already been sent to the Appellant on 10.05.2019. He further submitted that apart from said reply, a revised reply against points no. 4 and 7 of RTI application was provided now to the Appellant through letter dated 30.03.2021 through speed post.

The Appellant denied the receipt of the CPIO's reply dated 30.03.2021.

Decision:

The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the queries raised by the Appellant on points no. 4, 5 and 7 of the RTI application are not as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Yet, the CPIO has provided an adequate reply along with available information on 10.05.2019 and 30.03.2021, as per the RTI Act.

Now, considering the contentions of the Appellant during the hearing the Commission directs the CPIO to resend a copy of their reply dated 30.03.2021 to the Appellant, free of cost, on his email id [email protected] and also through speed/registered post. The said direction shall be complied within a week from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4