Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

J Rathina Bala Murugan vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 17 April, 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/SA/A/2015/000984/MP

Appellant                   :      Shri J. Rathina Bala Murugan, Tuticorin
Public Authority            :      University Grants Commission, New Delhi

Date of Hearing             :      April 6, 2017
Date of Decision            :      April 6, 2017

Present:
Appellant                   :      Present - through VC
Respondent                  :      Ms Ritu Oberai, US - at CIC

RTI application             :      22.03.2015
CPIO's reply                :      01.04.2015
First appeal                :      02.05.2015 (Not enclosed)
FAA's order                 :      May, 2015
Second appeal               :      12.06.2015

                                          ORDER

1. Shri J. Rathina Bala Murugan, the appellant, had taken up the matter regarding the appointment of Asstt Professor in the Department of Management/Business Admn in the Arts & Science College with respect to clarifications on the qualifications required. he stated that the MS University, Tirunelveli had sent a letter to UGC seeking clarification for appointment of Asstt Professor and wanted the photocopy of the clarification provided in the matter. Further, while quoting UGC Regulation dated 30.6.2010, para 4.4.5 and giving the minimum qualification required for appointing the Asstt Professor, he wanted to know whether those fulfilling the eligibility as per para 4.4.5 could apply for the post of Asstt Professor of Deptt of Management/BBA without clearing NET/SLET examination.

2. The CPIO intimated the appellant that the letter referred to in the query made by him had not been received by them. Besides, the clause referred to in the query is itself self explanatory. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority. The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. The appellant, not having received any information as he wanted, came in appeal before the Commission stating that the MS University had sent a letter to UGC as they had given a photocopy under RTI Act to him. He added that he was a suffering a lot of problem on account of not having received the clarification sought by the MS University.

3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he wanted to clarify the doubts relating to appointment of Asstt Professors for Deptt of Management/BBA. The MS University had informed him that they had sent a letter to UGC seeking clarification on decision on this issue, but the UGC had not sent any clarification whatsoever and had informed him that they had not received the official letter even though the University had sent the same quite some time back.

4. The respondent stated that they had not received any such letter from MS University and therefore there was no question of their giving any clarification in the matter. They had, however, provided the "Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teaching Faculty in Universities and Colleges - Management/Business Administration"

as contained in para 4.4.5 in UGC Regulations, 2010. They had also provided the copy of point 1.2 of the Regulation according to which the Regulations "shall apply to every university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act, every institution including a constituent or an affiliate college recognized by the Commission, in consultation with the university concerned under clause (f) of section 2 of the UGC Act, 1956 and every institution deemed to be a university u/s 3 of the said Act"

5. On hearing both the parties, the Commission finds that the respondent authority had provided the available and existing information. The CPIO is not obligated to clarify or interpret any rules, regulations, instructions under the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission, therefore, upholds the decision of the FAA. 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 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 Shri J. Rathina Bala Murugan 37C, Pilliadi Street, Tiruchendur, Distt Tuticorin-628215 (Tamil Nadu)