Central Information Commission
Kunal Kishor vs University Of Delhi on 30 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: Seven matters.
CIC/UODEL/A/2025/651162
CIC/UODEL/A/2025/645212
CIC/UODEL/A/2025/640226
CIC/UODEL/A/2025/636862
CIC/UODEL/A/2025/634118
CIC/UODEL/A/2025/634075
CIC/UODEL/A/2025/634073
KUNAL KISHOR .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI,
RTI CELL, DELHI -110007 .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 23.03.2026
Date of Decision : 23.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Note- The above-mentioned Second Appeals have been clubbed together for
disposal through common order as these are based on identical RTI
applications of the same Appellant.
(1) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/651162
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.08.2025
CPIO replied on : 03.10.2025
First appeal filed on : 07.10.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.11.2025
2nd Appeal dated : Nil
Page 1 of 22
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.08.2025 seeking the following information:
"Respected Sir. I hereby seek the following information regarding the complaint inquiry process initiated by the Competent Authority of the University of Delhi, which constituted a 3-member committee vide Letter Reference No. Estab (T)/V/001/2024/Comp/Edu./114 dated 20th January, 2025 (copy enclosed), for the purpose of convening a meeting scheduled on Monday, May 5, 2025, at 04:00 PM at the Office of the Registrar, to examine and investigate my formal complaints against Prof. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria of the Department of Education (C.I.E), University of Delhi. SPECIFIC INFORMATION SOUGHT:
1. Committee Constitution & Meeting Details: (Under Section 4(1)(b) - Disclosure obligations: mandates disclosure of particulars of the 2rganization, functions, and duties of the public authority.) (a) Attendance of the scheduled meeting on Monday, May 5, 2025, at 04:00 PM at the Office of the Registrar.
2. Meeting Proceedings & Outcomes: (Under Section 2(f) - Information includes records, documents, opinions & Section 4(1)© - Decision-making process disclosure) (a) What specific findings did the committee record against Prof. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria? (b) What evidence was examined and what conclusions were drawn? (c) Copy of the final report/recommendations submitted by the committee.
3. Disciplinary Action & Implementation: (Under Section 2(j) - Right to inspect works, documents & Section 4(1)(d) - Norms for discharge of functions: The university disciplinary action falls under this provision.) (a) What specific disciplinary action, if any, has been recommended against Prof. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria? (b) If no action has been taken, provide detailed reasons for the same. (c) Copy of all correspondence related to the implementation of the committee recommendations.
4. Timeline & Delay Analysis: (Under Section 4(1)(a) - Transparency & Section 19 - Overriding effect of RTI Act) (a) Why has there been an inexcusable delay in completing this inquiry process? (b) Who is responsible for this administrative negligence and delay? (c) Complete timeline of all actions taken from the date of complaint filing to present.
5. Administrative Accountability: (Under Section 4(1)(b) - Powers and duties of officers & Section 18 - Protection clause analysis) (a) Why was the complainant not informed about the progress despite repeated Page 2 of 22 follow-ups? (b) Which officer/department is responsible for this communication failure? (c) What compensation or remedy is being provided for the mental harassment caused by this delay?
6. Current Status & Future Action: (Under Section 6(3) - Assistance in seeking information & Section 7(5) - Transfer provisions) (a) What is the current exact status of this complaint matter? (b) By what specific date will this matter be conclusively resolved? (c) If the matter is still pending, provide detailed reasons and a timeline for completion. Yours sincerely, Kunal Kishor B.Ed. Student (Session 2021-23) Department of Education (CIE), University of Delhi."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03.10.2025 stating as under:
"The information sought by the applicant was endorsed to the Assistant Registrar (Estab. - Teaching) of the University, who is the deemed PIO under section 5(4) & 5(5) of the Act.
Input received from the Assistant Registrar (Estab.-Teaching) is enclosed, indicating that the Committee constituted by the Competent Authority to investigate the complaints filed against Prof. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria is presently ongoing with its proceedings. Consequently, no further input can be provided at this stage.
The applicant may contact the Assistant Registrar (Estab.-Teaching) on telephone nos. 011-27001165/011-27001260 (Email id [email protected]) for any further disclosable input which may be relevant in this regard."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.10.2025.The FAA vide its order dated 03.11.2025, stating as under-
"1. The Original Application, the First Appeal and the reply of the CPIO have been perused in this matter.
2. On perusal of the records, it has been noticed that the CPIO has responded to the OA vide decision dated 03.10.2025 (Uploading date 06.10.2025) on the basis of the input received from the concerned Deemed PIO in this matter.
3. On perusal of the relevant records, it has been observed that the appellant has filed the First Appeal on 06.10.2025 before receipt of the decision of the CPIO dated 03.10.2025 (Uploading date 06.10.2025). Therefore, Section Officer (Information) is directed to send a copy of the decision of the CPIO again to the appellant immediately on receipt of this Order.Page 3 of 22
4. Further, the CPIO is directed to decide the matters as per timeline prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Act in future.
5. The appeal is decided accordingly."
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(2) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/645212 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.07.2025 CPIO replied on : 08.08.2025 First appeal filed on : 24.08.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.09.2025 2nd Appeal dated : Nil Information sought:
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.07.2025 seeking the following information:
"To The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) University of Delhi New Delhi - 110007. Subject: Seeking Information Under RTI Act, 2005 Regarding Convocation Year of B.Ed. Degree (Session 2021-2023). Respected Sir/Madam, I am Kunal Kishor, a former student of the B.Ed. Programme (Session 2021-2023) at the Department of Education (CIE), University of Delhi. My examination credentials are as follows: Exam Roll Number:
21243364063 Enrollment Number: DB-968/13 I appeared in the B.Ed. Part-II (II-Year) Examination held in May/June 2023 and was declared passed as per Notification No. S.NO.NOT/2024/341 dated 16 August 2024. This notification, in partial modification of an earlier notification dated 26th July 2023, confirms my qualification for the B.Ed. degree. However, my degree certificate mentions that the degree was awarded at the convocation held in 2025, which raises a contradiction in the official timeline. In this regard, I request the following information under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005: Information Sought: 1. Please provide the official rules, regulations, or policy documents of the University of Delhi that govern the scheduling of convocations and the criteria for deciding the year of convocation applicable to a student who has passed their final-year examination (specifically B.Ed. Part-II Exam) in a particular academic session. 2. In my specific case, I was declared to have passed the B.Ed. Part-II Examination held in May/June 2023 vide Page 4 of 22 notification dated 16 August 2024 (Notification No. S.NO.NOT/2024/341). (a) Please clarify the official convocation year (2024 or 2025) applicable to my degree. (b) Please furnish the official record/document/order/file noting which shows the decision regarding my convocation year. 3. Please provide a copy of any University regulation, ordinance, or guideline that defines whether the convocation year is decided based on the date of passing the examination (16/08/2024) or the date of the convocation event held in 2024. I request that the information be provided in a clear and certified format. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Kunal Kishor Exam Roll No.: 21243364063 Enrollment No.: DB-968/13 Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) (Session 2021- 2023) Department of Education (C.I.E), University of Delhi."
6. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.08.2025 stating as under:
"The information sought by the applicant was endorsed to the Head, Department of Education and Joint Registrar/Nodal Officer(RTI- Exams) of the University, who are the deemed PIOs under section 5(4) & 5(5) of the Act.
1, 2(b)&3. As per input received from the Joint Registrar (Exams) / Section Officer (Exam-IV) is enclosed in this regard, indicates that the copy of University Ordinance Volume-II, Appendix-Vi of point no 16(1) regarding general rules of Convocation is enclosed. The applicant may contact the Joint Registrar (Exams) / Section Officer (Exam-IV) on telephone no. 011-27667833 and 011-27001041 for any further input which may be relevant in this regard.
2(a) On perusal of the original application and input provide by the deemed PIO, it appears that the requests of the applicant are not requests for information as defined under section 2(f) of the Act as the applicant is seeking clarification, which cannot be addressed under the Act.
However, relevant input received from the Joint Registrar (Exams) / Section Officer (Exam-IV) is enclosed in this regard, which indicates that the convocation date 22.02.2025 printed in applicant's degree is correct, as per result notification number NOT/2024/341 dated 16.08.2024."
7. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.08.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 22.09.2025, stating as under-
"1. The Original Application, the First Appeal and the reply of the CPIO have been perused in this matter.Page 5 of 22
2. On perusal of the records, it has been noticed that the CPIO has responded to the OA vide decision dated 08.08.2025 on the basis of the input received from the concerned deemed PIO in this matter.
3. On perusal of the OA, input provided by the Deemed PIO and the decision of the CPIO, it appears that available disclosable information has already been provided to the appellant. Further, clarifications are not request for information as per the RTI Act as has already been mentioned by the CPIO in his decision. Therefore, no further relief can be granted to the appellant and the decision of the CPIO is upheld in this matter."
8. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(3) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/640226 Information sought:
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.05.2025 seeking the following information:
"Respected Sir, I am filing this application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to seek information related to my complaints against Professor Pankaj Arora (Former Head & Dean, Department of Education and Former Dean (DSW, DU)). The following references are relevant to this matter: (1) CDS Diary No. 12838 dated 17 May 2024, forwarded to VC-4345, then to R-1806. (ii) CDS Diary No. 13334 dated 12 July 2024, forwarded to VC-5690, then to R-2543, and to Joint Registrar (Establishment Teaching) (23 July 2024). (iii) Email sent to Chief Vigilance Officer ([email protected]) on 09/12/2024, registered as Diary No. CR(D)/247 dated 20/12/2024 and forwarded to Establishment Teaching. As per the provisions of the RTI Act, I request the following specific and structured information: Information Requested: 1. Materials on Record: Kindly provide certified copies of all materials on record (evidence, correspondences, internal notes, memos, statements, etc.) based on which my complaints were examined. (RTI Section Invoked: Section 2(f) & 6(1)) 2. Investigatory Report: Provide a complete copy of the investigatory or fact-finding report (if any) prepared by the Competent Authority, including all conclusions, observations, and recommendations. (Section 2(j) & 6(1)) 3. If Rejected or Dismissed, Grounds for Rejection: If my complaint was rejected or dismissed, kindly share a copy of the formal order or document stating the grounds and reasoning for such rejection. (Section 4(1)(d) & 6(1)) 4. Inquiry Procedures Followed: Provide a step-by-step summary of the inquiry process followed in examining the allegations. Clarify whether the principles of natural justice were adhered Page 6 of 22 to, such as notice, opportunity to be heard, neutrality of the inquiry officer, etc. (Section 4(1)(b)(iii), 4(1)(d), and 6(1)) 5. Statements Recorded: Furnish certified copies of statements, if any, given by the teaching staff, non-teaching staff, and students of the Department of Education during the inquiry proceedings. (Section 2(j) & 6(1)) 6. Details of the Competent Authority: Provide the name(s), designation(s), office address(es). and contact details of the authority(ies) who examined my complaint. (Section 4(1)(b)(ix)) 7. Reason for Delay: Please specify the cause of the delay in initiating or concluding action on my complaint, which has remained unresolved for several months despite multiple applications. (Section 4(1)(c) & 6(1)) 8. Related Correspondence: Provide all correspondence (letters, emails, internal memos, file notings) exchanged between the university administration and other offices/persons (e.g., Registrar, Examination Branch) regarding my complaints. (Section 2(f), 2(j), and 6(1)) Request for Format and Structure: As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005, I request that the information for each point be provided separately, completely, and in a structured manner. Thank you for your assistance. Yours sincerely, Kunal Kishor B.Ed. Session 2021-23 Department of Education."
10. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.07.2025 stating as under:
"The information sought by the applicant was endorsed to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Joint Registrar (VCO) and Assistant Registrar (Estab. - Teaching) of the University, who are the deemed PIOs under section 5(4) & 5(5) of the Act.
On perusal of the original application, it appears that the request of the applicant constitutes a clarificatory questionnaire, which does not fall within the scope of a request for information as defined under section 2(f) of the Act.
However, input received from the Joint Registrar (CR & Vigilance) is enclosed in this regard, which indicates that a complaint via email dated 09.12.2024 from the applicant was received in the concerned office. Since, the allegations levelled by the complainant have no vigilance angle and are administrative in nature, consequently the above complaint was referred to the Assistant Registrar (Estab.-Teaching) for necessary action. Concurrently, the input received from the Assistant Registrar (Estab.- Teaching) is enclosed, indicating that the University has constituted a Committee to examine the complaints filed by the applicant against Prof. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria and the proceedings of the Committee are under Page 7 of 22 process, and therefore, no further input can be provided in this regard at this stage.
The applicant may contact the Assistant Registrar (Estab.-Teaching) on telephone nos. 011-27001165/011-27001260 (Email id - [email protected]) for any further disclosable input which may be relevant in this regard."
11. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.07.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 04.08.2025, stating as under-
"1. The Original Application, the First Appeal and the reply of the CPIO have been perused in this matter.
2. On perusal of the records, it has been noticed that the CPIO has responded to the OA vide decision dated 09.07.2025 on the basis of the input received from the concerned deemed PIO in this matter.
3. On perusal of the OA, input provided by the Deemed PIO and the decision of the CPIO, it appears that some available information has already been provided to the appellant. However, Assistant Registrar (Establishment - Teaching) is directed to provide further updated disclosable information, if any, beyond what has already been provided to the CPIO within two weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. The CPIO is directed to decide the matter accordingly within two weeks from the date of receipt of the input from the concerned deemed PIO in this matter."
12. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(4) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/636862 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.04.2025 CPIO replied on : 23.05.2025 First appeal filed on : 27.05.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 24.06.2025 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil Information sought:
13. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.04.2025 seeking the following information:
Page 8 of 22"I, Kunal Kishor, B.Ed. Student (Session 2021-23), Department of Education, University of Delhi, submitted a grievance to the Chairman, University Grants Commission (UGC) on 24 January 2025 via email to [email protected], subject titled: Administrative negligence and dual harassment during Professor Pankaj Arora tenure as the former Dean of DSW. A copy of this complaint is attached for your kind reference.
Under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, I hereby request the following specific information regarding the progress and status of my grievance:
1. Kindly provide the current status of the grievance submitted by me to UGC on 24 January 2025, forwarded to the University of Delhi.
Relevant Section: Section 2(f) and 6(1)
2. On what date did the University of Delhi receive this grievance from UGC or any other competent authority? Please provide the official diary or inward register details.
Relevant Section: Section 2(i) and 2(j)
3. Was any internal committee or officer assigned to examine or process this grievance? If yes, please share the name(s), designation(s), and date of assignment.
Relevant Section: Section 4(1)(d) and 6(1)
4. Please provide a copy of the file noting or decision taken by any University official(s) in reference to my complaint against Professor Pankaj Arora.
Relevant Section: Section 2(f), 2(j), and 6(1)
5. Has any inquiry or disciplinary action been initiated against Professor Pankaj Arora based on my grievance? If yes, kindly provide the initiation date and current status.
Relevant Section: Section 4(1)(d), 2(j)
6. If no action has been initiated, please mention the reasons for the delay or denial in addressing the grievance.
Relevant Section: Section 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d)
7. Has any internal report or communication been prepared in relation to my grievance? If yes, please provide a copy of the same. Relevant Section: Section 2(f) and 2(j)
8. Has the University sent any reply or communication to UGC or any other authority regarding this matter? Please provide copies of such communication.
Page 9 of 22Relevant Section: Section 2(j)
9. Whether the complaint has been closed, and if so, please provide the closure report or final remark, including the authority that approved the closure.
Relevant Section: Section 4(1)(d)
10. What is the standard timeframe for addressing grievances received from UGC or the office of the Chairman by the University of Delhi? Please provide the policy or rule.
Relevant Section: Section 4(1)(b)(v) Request for Separate Replies Under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 :"
14. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.05.2025 stating as under:
"The information sought by the applicant was endorsed to the Dean Students' Welfare, Head (Department of Education) and Assistant Registrar (Estab-Teaching) of the University, who are the deemed PIOs under section 5(4) & 5(5) of the Act.
Input received from the Head (Department of Education) / Assistant Registrar (Department of Education) indicates that the department has consistently addressed and pursued Mr. Kunal Kishor's academic concerns with the relevant University Authorities. Consequently, Mr. Kunal's B.Ed. (Part II) Exam result was revised and published on 16 August, 2024, a copy of which is enclosed herewith.
The Head (Department of Education) / Assistant Registrar (Department of Education) has further clarified that the applicant's concern regarding punitive disciplinary action against a faculty member constitutes a personal perception, which does not fall within the purview of information as defined under section 2(f) of the Act.
The Assistant Registrar (Estab.-Teaching) has substantiated that the complaint filed against Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria was examined at the appropriate level, revealing no merit and thereby, warranting its closure. Following the Competent Authority's directive to file the complaint, the applicant was apprised that no further communication in this regard would be entertained in near future.
The applicant may contact the Head (Department of Education) / Assistant Registrar (Department of Education) and Assistant Registrar (Estab.- Teaching) on telephone nos. 011-27666377 (Email id - [email protected]) and 011-27001165/011-27001260 (Email id [email protected]) respectively for any further input which may be relevant in this regard."Page 10 of 22
15. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.05.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 24.06.2025, stating as under-
"1. The Original Application, the First Appeal and the reply of the CPIO have been perused in this matter.
2. On perusal of the records, it has been noticed that the CPIO has responded to the OA vide decision dated 23.05.2025 followed by a letter dated 18.06.2025 on the basis of the input received from the concerned deemed PIOs in this matter.
3. On perusal of the OA, input provided by the Deemed PIO and the decision of the CPIO, it appears that some information has already been provided to the appellant. However, Assistant Registrar (Establishment -Teaching) is directed to look into the OA vis-à-vis the first appeal and provide further disclosable information, if any, beyond what has already been provided as per relevant provisions of the Act, directly to the appellant under intimation to the Information Section within three weeks from the date of receipt of this Order."
16. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(5) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/634118 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.05.2025 CPIO replied on : 11.06.2025 First appeal filed on : 13.06.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 03.07.2025 2nd Appeal dated : Nil Information sought:
17. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2025 seeking the following information:
"I, Kunal Kishor, B.Ed, Department of Education, hereby submit the following application under the RTI Act, 2005 to seek information regarding my complaint emailed from ([email protected]) on 14 January 2023 at 15:56 to the Dean Students Welfare ([email protected], [email protected]) subject: Complaint against Mathematics Pedagogue- Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria regarding his behaviour.Page 11 of 22
A reply was received from the DSW Office on 6 February 2023 at 16:12, referencing a submission made by Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria. I also submitted a detailed reply with clarifications and additional concerns to the DSW Office via email on 30 November 2023 at 03:30. However, I have received no further communication from your office.
Kindly provide the following information under the RTI Act, 2005:
1. Has the Office of the DSW completed the inquiry, cross-examination, and validation of the submission made by Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria?
Please provide a copy of the inquiry report, minutes of meetings, any file notings, and related correspondence.
(Relevant under Section 2(f), 2(j), and Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005).
2. On what basis did the DSW Office conclude or accept the submission of Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria in February 2023? Was there any validation, corroboration, or independent examination of the facts presented in his response?
(Section 4(1)(c), Section 4(1)(d), and Section 6(1)).
3. If the inquiry process has been completed, kindly furnish the certified copies of all records, documents, communications, statements, and the final report or resolution concluded in the matter. (Section 2(j) and Section 6(1)).
4. If the inquiry process is still pending, please provide the following details:
(a) The reasons for the inordinate delay.
(b) The current status of the matter.
(c) The expected time frame for completion.
(Section 4(1)(d) and Section 6(1)).
5. Name, designation, and contact details of the officer(s) or authority accountable for handling and processing my complaint/application. (Section 4(1)(b)(ix) and Section 6(1)).
6. Who is the competent authority responsible for supervising or directing the inquiry process in such complaints at the DSW Office? Has any responsibility been fixed upon any officer in this matter? (Section 4(1)(a) 4(1)(b) and Section 6(1)).
Page 12 of 227. Has any communication or action been initiated by the DSW Office with the Department of Education (C.I.E) based on my complaint? If yes, provide copies of all such communication and replies received. (Section 2(j), Section 6(1), and Section 4(1)(d) )
8. Was I (the complainant) ever considered for oral hearing, cross- examination, or further inquiry during this process? If not, why was natural justice not ensured in resolving my complaint? (Section 4(1)(d) and Section 6(1)).
18. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 11.06.2025 stating as under:
"The information sought by the applicant was endorsed to the Dean Students' Welfare and Head (Department of Education) of the University, who are the deemed PIOs under section 5(4) & 5(5) of the Act.
On perusal of the original application, it appears that the request of the applicant constitutes a clarificatory questionnaire, which does not fall within the scope of a request for information as defined under section 2(f) of the Act.
However, input received from the Head (Department of Education) / Assistant Registrar (Department of Education) indicates that the department has consistently pursued Mr. Kunal Kishor's academic concerns with the relevant University Authorities, resulting in the revision and publication of his B.Ed. (Part II) Exam result on 16 August, 2024, a copy of which is enclosed.
The Head (Department of Education)/Assistant Registrar (Department of Education) have clarified that the applicant's apprehension concerning about punitive disciplinary action against a faculty member constitutes a personal perception, which does not fall within the purview of information as defined under section 2(f) of the Act. The Assistant Registrar (Estab.-Teaching) has categorically substantiated that the complaint filed against Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria was thoroughly examined at the appropriate level, and found to be without merit, warranting its closure. Pursuant to the Competent Authority's directive to file the complaint, the applicant was informed that no further communication pertaining to this matter would be entertained in near future.Page 13 of 22
The applicant may contact the Head (Department of Education) / Assistant Registrar (Department of Education) and Assistant Registrar (Estab.-Teaching) on telephone nos. 011-27666377 (Email id - [email protected]) and 011-27001165/011-27001260 (Email id [email protected]) respectively for any further input which may be relevant in this regard."
19. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.06.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 03.07.2025, stating as under -
"1. The Original Application, the First Appeal and the reply of the CPIO have been perused in this matter.
2. On perusal of the records, it has been noticed that the CPIO has responded to the OA vide decision dated 11.06.2025 on the basis of the input received from the concerned deemed PIO in this matter.
3. On perusal of the OA, input provided by the Deemed PIO and the decision of the CPIO, it appears that some information has already been provided to the appellant. However, the CPIO is directed to revisit the OA and decide the matter within three weeks from the date of receipt of this Order."
20. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(6) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/634075 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.04.2025 CPIO replied on : 21.05.2025 First appeal filed on : 22.05.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.06.2025 2nd Appeal dated : NIL Information sought:
21. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.04.2025 seeking the following information:
"Respected Sir, I am filing this application under the RTI Act to obtain specific and detailed information regarding the procedure, eligibility, and decision-making process for scheduling an appointment with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Delhi. I had submitted the Page 14 of 22 following communications requesting an appointment with the Vice- Chancellor:
1. Email dated 29/05/2024, to [email protected] with the subject: Request for Appointment Regarding Unfair Treatment and Harassment, registered as Diary No. VC-4673 of 2024.
2. Application dated 12/07/2024, with the subject: Urgent Request for Personal Appointment to Discuss Prolonged Unresolved Issues, registered under CDS Diary No. 13332 and VC Diary No. 5655 of 2024. Despite multiple efforts over a year, I have neither received an appointment nor any response from the VC office. Therefore, I request the following information:
1. What is the official protocol or procedure for a student to secure a personal appointment with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Delhi? Provision Invoked: Section 2(f) of the RTI Act- Information includes records, documents, and instructions.
2. Under what circumstances or categories are appointments with the Vice-Chancellor generally granted? Please provide official guidelines or criteria. Provision: Section 4(1)(c)- Dissemination of relevant facts while formulating policies or announcing decisions which affect the public.
3. Who is the authority or officer responsible for reviewing and approving or rejecting appointment requests made to the Vice-Chancellor?
Provision: Section 2(j)- Right to information includes inspection of work, documents, and records.
4. What are the reasons for not granting me an appointment despite repeated written applications and detailed grievances? Provision: Section 4(1)(d)- Provide reasons for administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
5. Please provide a copy of the internal note(s), file movement, or comments made on my requests registered under Diary Nos. VC-4673 and VC-5655. Provision: Section 2(f) and Section 6(1)- Right to inspect documents, files, and records.
6. Is there a grievance redressal mechanism within the VC office for unattended or ignored appointment requests? If yes, please provide contact details and escalation hierarchy. Provision: Section 4(1)(b)(viii)- Details of the procedure followed in the decision-making process.
7. Provide the total number of student requests for appointments received by the VC office from 01/01/2023 to 21/04/2025, along with the number of appointments granted, rejected, or still pending. Provision:
Section 2(i)- Right to obtain information in the form of records or data.
8. On what grounds are student appointment requests with the Vice- Chancellor approved, delayed, or rejected? Please share documented Page 15 of 22 guidelines or policy notes. Provision: Section 4(1)(b)(iii)- Procedure followed in the decision-making process, including channels of supervision and accountability."
22. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.05.2025 stating as under:
"The information sought by the applicant was endorsed to the Joint Registrar (VCO) of the University, who is the deemed PIO under section 5(4) & 5(5) of the Act.
1,2,3,4,5&8. On perusal of the original application, lit is observed that certain requests are clarificatory in nature and do not constitute requests for information as defined under section 2(f) of the Act. Nevertheless, it is informed, that seeking an appointment with the officers of the University is an administrative matter. The applicant may, therefore, contact the concerned office or officers administratively.
6. A copy of the relevant notification as provided by the Joint Registrar (VCO) is enclosed in this regard.
7. Input received from the Joint Registrar (VCO) indicates that the no such records is maintained by the concerned Office. Consequently, no futher input could be furnished by the deemed PIO in this regard."
23. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.05.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 18.06.2025, stating as under-
"1. The Original Application, the First Appeal and the reply of the CPIO have been perused in this matter.
2. On perusal of the records, it has been noticed that the CPIO has responded to the OA vide decision dated 21.05.2025 in this matter.
3. On perusal of the OA, input provided by the Deemed PIO and the decision of the CPIO, it appears that available disclosable information has already been provided to the appellant. Therefore, no further relief can be granted to the appellant and the decision of the CPIO is upheld in this matter.
4. However, since appointment for meeting is a purely administrative matter, the appellant may take up with the concerned Office administratively."Page 16 of 22
24. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(7) CIC/UODEL/A/2025/634073 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.04.2025 CPIO replied on : 16.05.2025 First appeal filed on : 21.05.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.06.2025 2nd Appeal dated : Nil Information sought:
25. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.04.2025 seeking the following information:
"Subject: Request for Information under the RTI Act, 2005 - Regarding Applications Sent via Email. Respected Sir/Madam, I, Kunal Kishor, a student of the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.), Session 2021-23, Department of Education (C.I.E.), University of Delhi, respectfully submit this RTI application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to seek information regarding various email communications addressed to the University authorities. Between 14 January 2023 and 11 April 2025, I submitted several applications via my email ID [email protected] to the following offices of the University of Delhi: Office of the Vice Chancellor ([email protected]) Office of the Registrar ([email protected]) Office of the Ombudsperson ([email protected]) Office of the Dean Students Welfare ([email protected] and [email protected]) I kindly request you to provide the following information: 1. Diary Numbers and Forwarding Details: (a) Please provide the Diary Numbers allotted to each of the applications sent via email, along with the subject line and the corresponding dates of receipt. (b) For each such application, provide details of the office(s) to which the application was forwarded, along with the Diary Numbers and dates of forwarding. 2. Progress and Action Taken: For each application (corresponding to each Diary Number), please provide: (a) Status/progress of the application (b) Action(s) taken by the respective office (c) Communication or decisions issued, if any (d) Date of final disposal or conclusion, if applicable 3. Delays and Timeline for Response: (a) If any applications are still pending, please specify the reasons for the delay. (b) Provide the expected timeline by which a proper reply or resolution may be expected from the concerned office.Page 17 of 22
Additional Note: As a student, it is not always possible for me to physically visit and follow up with various administrative offices. Hence, I am compelled to seek this information through the RTI Act, 2005. I respectfully request that you provide separate, structured, and complete information for each Diary Number under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005, and ensure that responses from all the concerned offices are duly included. Thank you for your assistance. Yours sincerely, Kunal Kishor B.Ed. Session 2021-23 Department of Education (C.I.E), University of Delhi."
26. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.05.2025 stating as under:
"The information sought by the applicant was endorsed to the Dean Student's Welfare, Head, Department of Education, Joint Registrar (Registrar Office), Joint Registrar (VCO), Joint Registrar (Exams), Assistant Registrar (Academic) and Assistant Registrar (Estab. - Teaching) of the University, who are the deemed PIOs under section 5(4) & 5(5) of the Act.
On perusal of the original application, it is observed that the applicant is seeks information on action taken on numerous e-mails sent to various offices over a two years period (January 14, 2023 to April 11, 2025). Input received from the deemed PIOs indicates that such information is not maintained in a compiled format, nor it is required to be maintained in such a manner for the day to day functioning of the concerned offices. In this context, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhya dated 09.08.2011 are particularly relevant. The Court emphasized that public authorities should not be required to divert substantial resources from their core functions to complie and furnish information. This principle is squarely applicable to the present case.
However, input received from the Dean Student's Welfare indicates that the e-mails sent by the applicant to the Dean Student's Welfare Office ([email protected]) between January 14, 2023 to April 11, 2025 were forwarded to the respective offices for necessary action. However, the Dean Student's Welfare does not have access to the contents of email id ([email protected]).
Further, Joint Registrar (Registrar Office) has informed that the office has received over 100 emails concerning Mr. Kunal Kishor's matter, sent from his email id or the Vice Chancellor Office email id. These emails were Page 18 of 22 forwarded to the relevant authorities, including the Dean & Head, Faculty of Education, Dean Students' Welfare, Controller of Examinations, Joint Registrar (Teaching) and Assistant Registrar (Teaching) from time to time for appropriate action. Compiling the details of all such emails as sought by the applicant is not feasible, as it would necessitate creating new data, thereby placing an undue burden on public resources and man power.
The applicant may contact the Head (Department of Education) on telephone no. 011-27666377 (Email [email protected]) in this regard."
27. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.05.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 18.06.2025, stating as under-
"1. The Original Application, the First Appeal and the reply of the CPIO have been perused in this matter.
2. On perusal of the records, it has been noticed that the CPIO has responded to the OA vide decision dated 16.05.2025 followed by a letter dated 28.05.2025 on the basis of the input received from the concerned deemed PIOs in this matter.
3. On perusal of the OA, input provided by the Deemed PIO and the decision of the CPIO, it appears that some information has already been provided to the appellant. However, Assistant Registrar (Establishment - Teaching) and Head (Department of Education) are directed to provide appropriate disclosable information to the appellant as per relevant provisions of the Act within three weeks from the date of receipt of this Order."
28. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Kunal Kishor present in person.
Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AR/CPIO along with Shri Rakesh Hasija, AR (Acad.), Shri Kailash Chand Meena, AR (Estt.), Shri Ashish Ranjan, Professor and Shri G D Som, AR (Education), University of Delhi present in person.Page 19 of 22
29. Written statement filed by the Appellant as well as by CPIO are taken on record.
30. Appellant restricted his arguments to the fact that there is a delay of 10, 13 and 15 days in giving the reply by the CPIO which is beyond stipulated time frame. Appellant prayed the Commission that penalty should be imposed on the CPIO. It was further plea of the Appellant that compensation should also be awarded to him for the detriment suffered owing to alleged action of the concerned Professor for delaying his B.Ed. result against whom he filed multiple complaints and representations. In File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2025/640226 and File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2025/636862, the Appellant contended that he has sought information pertaining to the complaint filed against Professor Pankaj Arora, however, the deemed PIO has in a cyclostyle manner furnished reply related to the Complaints filed against Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanwaria.
31. CPIO relied on his written statement and stated that despite the fact that the Appellant has filed multiple RTI application with similar/overlapping queries, yet the fact remains reply in response to each of the RTI applications under reference has been provided to the Appellant on every occasion. CPIO by denying the contentions of the Appellant stated that reply regarding action taken report on the complaints filed against Dr. Vinod Kumar Kanwaria and Professor Pankaj Arora was provided separately as per their records but since the RTI applications of the Appellant every time remains overlapping, therefore, there is a possibility that reply of the one may be mixed with the others, however, it was unintentional and there is no deliberate denial of information as such. CPIO apprised the Bench that complaint received from the Appellant in the first instance was closed for no vigilance, however, upon receipt of another subsequent complaint from the Appellant through UGC a committee was constituted to inquire into the Complaint, outcome of which is pending for inquiry. This fact was also intimated to the Appellant. Decision:
32. Heard the parties.
33. On perusal of the records of the instant Second Appeal, the Commission observed at the outset that similar Appeals of the Appellant against same CPIO, University of Delhi has already been heard and decided by this Bench Page 20 of 22 vide File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2025/617788 & Others wherein it was observed that the Appellant has a grievance regarding the alleged delay in declaration of his B.Ed. result for which he filed multiple complaints. It was also noted by the Commission that resolution of grievance of the Appellant does not fall under ambit of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, as regards the complaints raised by the Appellant against the concerned Professor(s), it was informed by the CPIO, University of Delhi in the earlier heard Appeals (File No. referred in this paragraph) that a Committee has been constituted and the inquiry of which is under process.
34. As far as RTI applications in question are concerned, despite the fact that queries raised by the Appellant are either unspecific which starts with the words '...all' or in the form of interrogatory query, which do not even fall under the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, it was suitably replied by the CPIO details of which are mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this order.
35. It is noteworthy that CPIO can only provide such information as is held in the office record, and as a matter of fact, he/she is not obligated to create information as per the desire of the applicant under the mandate of RTI Act. The Commission placed reliance on a judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 04.12.2014 in the case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011], wherein the Court has held as under:
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
36. Further, considering the repetitive filing of RTI applications by the Appellant, the Commission relies on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) wherein it was held:
"37.... impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in Page 21 of 22 the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties..."
37. Having observed as above, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matters at this juncture.
The instant Appeals are disposed of, accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लं गी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri KUNAL KISHOR Page 22 of 22 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)