Central Information Commission
Prasanna S. vs University Grants Commission on 16 February, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UGCOM/A/2025/603263
PRASANNA S. .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
RTI CELL, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR
MARG, NEW DELHI -110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.02.2026
Date of Decision : 12.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.11.2024
CPIO replied on : 26.11.2024
First appeal filed on : 03.12.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : N.A.
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.01.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.11.2024 seeking the following information:-
"1. Kindly provide the details that the if a student is eligible to get scholarship under 'National Scholarship for Post Graduate Studies', who get Reassessment without Attendance in his PG Degree. (Illustration - a student is joined in his PG in 2024 for the tenure of 2024-2026. without applying his scholarship his studies is paused due to Reassessment without Attendance (not having sufficient attendance). After that Page 1 of 3 academic year (2024), he is re-admitted to 1st year in same PG Degree (2025). His degree tenure is extended to 2024-2027. Is he eligible to get scholarship for his 1st year in 2025-2026 academic year and also he is eligible to get scholarship for his 2nd year in 2026-2027 academic year.
2. Kindly provide the details regarding the above said scheme is also applicable to the one year PG Degree also. (I also tried to get these details from Scholarship portal, but It is not giving any proper results.)."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26.11.2024 stating as under:-
"Please refer to scheme guidelines, For more information you can log in https://scholarships.gov.in."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.12.2024. The FAA order is not on record.
4. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of First Appeal, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Ms. Poonam Arora, US/CPIO present in person.
5. Appellant remained absent during hearing despite service.
6. Written statement of the CPIO narrating the chain of correspondence forwarded to the Appellant pertaining to this Second Appeal is taken on record.
7. CPIO stated that the Appellant has information regarding the eligibility criteria to obtain scholarship under the National Scholarship for Post Graduate Studies (NSPGS). In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is invited towards the specific URL path where the said guidelines can be easily accessed through website. The same reply was reiterated by the FAA in its order dated 21.01.2025 while disposing of the First Appeal. Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the CPIO and perusal of the records observed that as far as RTI Page 2 of 3 application is concerned suitable reply was furnished by the CPIO to the Appellant vide letter dated 26.11.2024 and now vide latest written statement, which is found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The UGC guidelines as referred by the CPIO in the reply on the subject matter appears to be self-explanatory and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Further, the Commission also noted with concern that prayer of Appellant seeking certified copy of relevant Guidelines/Rules which are already available in public domain is not tenable in view of the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India v. R S Misra (W.P. (C) 3530/2011 in which it was held:
"...59.In the present case, maintaining two parallel machinery: one under SCR and the other under the RTI Act, would clearly lead to duplication of work and unnecessary expenditure, in turn leading to clear wastage of human resources as well as public funds. Also, request for hard copies of information (as contemplated under Section 7 of the RTI Act) in respect of those information which are already available and accessible in the public domain, under the mechanism contemplated under the SCR, will further lead to unnecessary diversion of resources and conflict with other public interest which includes optimal use of limited fiscal resources."
3. In light of the above observations, no cause of action subsists for further adjudication in the matter and the submissions of the CPIO are upheld.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri PRASANNA S. Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)