Central Information Commission
Rajbir Singh Dalal vs University Grants Commission on 10 July, 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/RM/A/2014/003314/MP
Appellant : Shri Rajbir Singh Dalal, Sirsa
Public Authority : University Grants Commission, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : July 5, 2017
Date of Decision : July 7, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Not present
Respondent : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Sr. Statistical Officer (UGC-
NET Bureau), Smt. Ritu Oberoi, Under Secretary
(PS), Smt. Kulvinder Kaur, Under Secretary (L),
Smt. Manju Nagpal, S.O. - at CIC
RTI application : 28.03.2014
CPIO's reply : 07.05.2014, 13.06.2014
First appeal : 08.05.2014
FAA's Order : 18.06.2014
Second appeal : 01.07.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Rajbir Singh Dalal, the appellant, sought certified copy of relevant Rules regarding promotion of a lecturer to the post of Assistant Professor after completion of three years of service without Ph.D.; copy of the rules regarding promotion of Lecturer to the post of Associate Professor under CAS when the Ph.D. thesis was rejected by the University concerned; whether or not IGNOU-NET was considered equivalent to UGC-NET along with the copy of relevant rules in that regard; etc., through six points.
2. The appellant, not having received any response/information from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a request to direct the CPIO to provide the desired information/documents, free of cost. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) provided a copy of Schedule Clause 6.8.0 of UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities) Regulations, 2010, under points 1 & 2 of the RTI application and forwarded the appellant's RTI application to NET division of UGC and the Legal Bureau of UGC, for responding to the appellant directly, under points 3, 4 & 5 of the application. The CPIO further informed the appellant that no information could be provided to him under point 6 as it did not mention any reference/subject matter. The CPIO, NET division of UGC, responded to the appellant on point 3 of the RTI application vide letter dated 13.06.2014. The FAA informed the appellant that the CPIO had already replied to his RTI application and provided a copy of the CPIO's reply dated 07.05.2014 to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the appellant approached the Commission and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete and correct information to the appellant under points 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the RTI application and to impose penalty upon the CPIO.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present despite the notice for hearing having been duly sent to him. The appellant in his second appeal stated that he had not been given information under points 2, 4, 5 & 6 of the RTI application and information provided to him under point 3 was not specific.
4. The respondent stated that point 1 & 2 of the appellant's RTI application pertained to Pay Scale Bureau of UGC and available information, as per the records, had been already provided to the appellant by the CPIO on 07.05.2014 whereby, the copy of Schedule for Clause 6.8.0. containing UGC Regulations on pay scales, promotion of Assistant/Associate Professors under CAS was provided to the appellant. The CPIO, UGC-NET Bureau had provided the available information, as per the records, to the appellant on point 3 vide reply dated 13.06.2014, stating that National Eligibility Test (NET) was conducted by UGC, CSIR and ICAR and that it was not conducted by IGNOU. Similarly, the CPIO, UGC (Legal Bureau), had provided the available information on points 4 & 5 of the application, vide reply dated 25.07.2016. However, as far as information sought by the appellant under point 6 was concerned, the appellant did not mention the reference and therefore, the information could not have been provided to him at that time. Further, the letter in question had been submitted before the Court by MD University, Rohtak and the matter was already pending before the court and the file concerned was also not traceable in the office of the respondent authority. The appellant was not present to put forth his contentions.
5. On hearing the respondents and perusing the available records, the Commission observes that the CPIOs concerned have provided the available information, as per the records, to the appellant. A public authority is supposed to provide only the available and existing information, as per the records, held by it or under its control. The Commission however, notices with concern that the CPIO's (Legal Bureau, UGC) reply on points 4 & 5 of the RTI application was sent on 25.07.2016 only whereas, the appellant's RTI application is dated 28.03.2014 and there has been an inexplicable delay of more than 2 years in responding to the application. The Commission therefore, warns the CPIO of negligent handling of the RTI applications and directs the CPIO to respond in a time bound manner, as stipulated in the RTI Act, 2005, in the future. No further intervention is called for in the matter. 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, RTI Cell, Joint Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 New Delhi - 110 002 Shri Rajbir Singh Dalal, House No. 688, Sector - 20, HUDA, Sirsa, (Haryana)