Central Information Commission
Dr. S. Chakkaravarthi vs University Grants Commission on 20 October, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UGCOM/A/2020/669866
Dr. S. Chakkaravarthi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
University Grants Commission,
RTI Cell, Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi- 110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/10/2021
Date of Decision : 18/10/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/12/2019
CPIO replied on : 20/01/2020
First appeal filed on : 01/02/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 13/03/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17/03/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.12.2019 seeking the following information:
"As per the Page No 108, Table 3A, of UGC regulations 2018, for direct recruitment of assistant professors, post doctoral experience is considered equivalent to teaching. However for considering the past experience under CAS in the same regulation (Clause 10.0) postdoctoral experience is not mentioned;
1. Kindly clarify whether postdoctoral experience is equivalent to teaching experience or not?
2. Can the Postdoctoral experience be considered for promotion under CAS or not?"
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 20.01.2020 stating as follows:-
1:-Relevance/equivalency, nature of the essential qualification is to be decided by the concerned appointing Authority/University. Besides, UGC has framed Regulation after a detailed discussion and consultation with all the relevant stakeholder and with due approval of MHRD. These Regulations are mandatory in nature and cannot be overlooked at any stage.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.02.2020. FAA's order dated 13.03.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
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 video conference.
Respondent: Shashi Malik, Under Secretary (Pay Scale) & CPIO present through video conference.
The Appellant stated that he has not received any reply to point no.2 of the RTI Application.2
The CPIO submitted that the information that has been provided to the Appellant is as per the availability of records and the clarifications desired by the Appellant cannot be provided under the RTI Act. The CPIO further advised the Appellant to seek for the desired clarification through appropriate channel.
The Appellant argued that the Delhi University released a notification on "promotion and recruitment of faculty members in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2018 with special reference to counting the Post-doctoral research experience." According to this notification "experience on account of Post- doctoral research experience along with other Ad hoc experience of direct recruitment or Temporary or contractual service should also be accounted for the purpose of direct recruitment and promotions in addition to the regular service of the applicant." In this context, he insisted upon a clarification to be provided for point no.2 of the RTI Application seeking to know as to why the same notification is not applicable to NIFTEM.
The CPIO reiterated her inability to provide any such clarification and requested the Appellant to provide them with a copy of the averred notification and ask for the clarification through proper channel.
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 Appellant do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for interpretations and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO based on speculative queries.
The Appellant 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:3
"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) In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds the instant appeal bereft of merit.
The Appellant is advised to pursue the grievance narrated by him during the hearing with UGC through proper channel.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4