Central Information Commission
R Ragavendran vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 23 July, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/106666/01150
File no.: CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/106666
In the matter of:
R Ragavendran
... Appellant
V
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
The Gandhigram Rural Institute,
(Deemed to be University),Gandhigram-624302
Dindigul, Tamil Nadu
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 08/11/2017 CPIO replied on : 04/12/2017 First appeal filed on : 16/11/2017 First Appellate Authority order : 11/01/2018 Second Appeal dated : 31/01/2018 Date of Hearing : 23/07/2019 Date of Decision : 23/07/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: BPR Shiva Kumar, Registrar & CPIO, present over VC.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information: a. Is a candidate who M.A. Sociology with Ph.D., Sociology, eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, in the Department of Rural Development as per the UGC Rules.1
b. Can any Candidate having M.A. in Rural Development with M.Phil., in Micro Level Planning, register himself for the Ph.D., Research Programme in the Department of Sociology.
c. Is it permissible for any candidate having M.A., in Sociology and M. Phil in Sociology to do the Ph.D., Research Programme under the Department of Rural Development.
d. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant was not present to plead his case despite service of valid hearing notice on 12.07.2019 vide speed post acknowledgment no ED04839930IN.
The CPIO submitted that since the appellant through his RTI application had raised a number of questions instead of asking for supply of specific documents/information held by the Public Authority, the appellant was informed about the same through his letter dated 04.12.2017. However, after receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, another reply has been provided to the appellant on 19.07.2019.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that an appropriate reply had been provided to the appellant on 04.12.2017. Moreover, the CPIO has also provided a recent reply on 19.07.2019 which is satisfactory and since the appellant was also not present to contest the reply of the CPIO, no further action is warranted in the matter.
Decision:
Based on the above observations, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and finds no scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु त) 2 File no.: CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/106666 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3