Central Information Commission
Devendra Pratap Singh vs University Grants Commission on 19 April, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/SA/A/2015/001176/MP
Appellant : Dr. Devendra Pratap Singh, Bhopal
Public Authority : University Grants Commission, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : April 05, 2017
Date of Decision : April 17, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Smt. Ritu Oberoi, Under Secretary, Smt. Manju
Nagpal, Section Officer- at CIC
RTI application : 04.02.2015
CPIO's reply : 18.03.2015
First appeal : 05.03.2015
FAA's Order : 10.04.2015
Second appeal : 30.06.2015
ORDER
1. Dr. Devendra Pratap Singh, the appellant, sought certified copy of Rules/Guidelines/Notification of the University Grants Commission (UGC) notifying different eligibility criteria/qualifications for recruitment of Assistant teachers to engineering and technology colleges/ and different eligibility criteria for appointment of Assistant teachers to traditional colleges when equal pay scale was fixed for both the posts; certified copy of Rules/Guidelines/Notification of the UGC exempting the Assistant teachers to engineering and technology colleges from qualifying NET/SLET/SET or Ph.D. Degree though, the said examination had been made compulsory for the Assistant teachers of the traditional colleges.
2. The CPIO provided a copy of Rule 4.4.1 and Rule 4.4.6.1 of the UGC Guidelines, 2010, notifying minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of teachers/professor and other academic staff in Universities/Colleges as well as Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010. The appellant, not having received the abovesaid response from the CPIO within the prescribed period, approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA), requesting him to provide the requisite information. The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. Dissatisfied with the decision of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that he was not provided the desired information by the CPIO as he sought copy of rules/basis for discriminating between the minimum qualifications for Assistant teachers of Engineering and Technology college and those of the traditional colleges and therefore, requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide him the requisite information/documents.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he sought the basis/reasons from the respondent authority, if any, maintained by the respondent authority in the form of Rules/notification/regulations/guidelines creating discriminatory rules relating to minimum qualifications between Assistant professors of Engineering and Technology college and those of traditional colleges but, he did not receive the relevant information/documents from the CPIO in this regard.
4. The respondent stated that as per the information available with them, the CPIO had provided a copy of Rule 4.4.1 and Rule 4.4.6.1 of the UGC Guidelines, 2010, notifying minimum qualifications for appointment of teaching faculty of Engineering and Technology Discipline in Universities/Colleges, to the appellant. The respondent further submitted that the regulations in question were framed by the Selection/Expert Committee of the UGC after detailed deliberations/discussions and consultations with all the relevant stakeholders as well as GoI and M/o HRD and were mandatory in nature. However, no comments/discussions or minutes of the Committee's meeting were recorded at that time nor they were available with the respondent authority and therefore, they could not provide any reasons/basis to the appellant for different eligibility criteria for the teaching faculty in different Universities/Colleges by the UGC.
5. On hearing both the parties, the Commission holds that whatever information was available with the respondent authority has been provided to the appellant and that the public authority is not supposed to create or collate non-available, non- existing information for the satisfaction of the appellant u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay has observed as follows:-
"35. 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 analyzed 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.
6. In view of the above decisions, the Commission upholds the decision of the CPIO. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority University Grants Commission, University Grants Commission, Under Secretary & PIO, Joint Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 New Delhi - 110 002 Devendra Pratap Singh, House No. 14, Amirganj, Hikmat Tower, Flat No. S-4, 2nd Floor, Golghar Ke Paas, Paripark Road, Lower Idgah Hills, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh - 462001