Central Information Commission
Himanshu Sekhar Rout vs University Grants Commission on 15 September, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UGCOM/C/2020/664587
Himanshu Sekhar Rout .... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
University Grants Commission,
RTI Cell, Bahadurshah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110002. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14/09/2021
Date of Decision : 14/09/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/01/2020
CPIO replied on : 18/02/2020
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/02/2020
Information sought:
1The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.01.2020 seeking the following information:
(a) The Commission at its meeting held on 18 January 2002 resolved that "the Professor already appointed under direct recruitment be not eligible" (one of the criteria) for promotion from Reader (now Associate Professor) to Professor under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) which was also communicated by the then Joint Secretary, UGC Vide No. F.3-
3/2000(PS) dated 21 February 2002. Whether the same rule / regulation is valid also today / now or any modification / revision has been made. If any modification/revision has been made, please provide a photocopy of it.
(b) Suppose, I have joined as Professor under direct recruitment on 2 January 2020 but I am eligible for Professor under CAS as on 1 June 2018 (university has not conducted CAS Interview for me in the last two years). Now (in 2020) whether I am eligible to appear the CAS Interview for Professor or not.
The CPIO replied to the complainant on 18.02.2020 stating as under:-
1. "Please refer to clause 4.1 & 6.4 of UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification For Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 which are self explanatory and available on UGC website www.ugc.ac.in.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Shashi Malik, US & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Complainant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as he has asked for pointed information yet no relevant reply has been provided to him. The CPIO submitted that reference of the relevant UGC Regulations has been provided to the Complainant.2
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 queries raised by the Complainant do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Complainant has sought for interpretations and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO based on hypothesis and speculation.
The Complainant 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:
"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) The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 4