Central Information Commission
Ms. Varda Kaushik vs All India Council For Technical ... on 17 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000294/7181
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000294
Appellant : Ms. Varda Kaushik
D/o Sh. M.S. Kaushik
1323/7, Shambhu Dayal Mandir Marg,
Sonepat (Haryana) 131001
Respondent : The Public Information Officer
All India Council for Technical Education
7th Floor, Chandra Lok Building,
Janpath, New Delhi 110001
RTI application filed on : 29/10/2009
PIO replied : not replied.
First Appeal filed on : 21/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order : not replied
Second Appeal Received on : 04/02/2010
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 17/02/2010
Hearing Held on : 17/03/2010
Information sought:
The appellant had asked that the information related with certified copies of the following documents.
1. Original Letter of approval by AICTE to the Sonepath Hindu Educational & Charitable Society (SHECS), Sonepat to run full time MCA and MBA programmes and establish its management arm i.e. Hindu Institute of Management (HIM) Sonepat.
2. AICTE norms for the constitution of the interview committees i.e. qualification, status of the members for the selection of faculty at all levels (from Director/Principal to lecturers respectively).
3. Letters giving extension of approval to HIM for the academic years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09 respectively.
4. Constitution of the Appraisal Committee/Expert Committee (Names, designation and other details etc.) by AICTE and their recommendations for each year along with the observations/deficiencies/specific conditions laid down for each year respectively in respect of HIM.
5. Whether the deficiencies/specific conditions pointed by the preceding committee were fully complied with at the time of appraisal by the succeeding committee?
6. If not, basis and consideration on which the committee granted its approval.
7. Are the norms/standard specified by AICTE for granting approval for establishing new institutions and granting extension to the existing institutions mandatory?
8. HIM is without a qualified full time Director/Principal as on date. How does AICTE see this whole process and what action it contemplates against the SHECS Sonepat?Page 1 of 3
9. HIM runs five courses BBA, BCA, MBA, MCA and B. Ed in same building. On what grounds and norms did AICTE granted approval of these courses to HIM. Please provide a copy of the approval
10. Wasn't the appointment of Dr. Swan Dubey a ploy of the SHCS, Sonepat to complete the formality of filing the compliance report as he was forced to leave the institute soon after the joining and HIM continue to run the without a qualified Director against AICTE norms?
11. What is the mechanism in place in AICTE for examining and verification of the compliance report submitted by the institutions? Whether the Appraisal Committee/Expert Committee again carries out inspection before its acceptance or the report is accepted as such on its face value?
12. Whether the compliance report submitted by HIM for the extension given to it beyond the academic year 2007-08 by AITCE has been verified and accepted? Or what is its present status?
13. If yes, list of the regular faculty members in the Hindu Institute of Management for the sessions 2008-09 and 2009-10 for MBA, MCA & BBA courses included in their compliance report 9reference item No. 11 above)?
14. Constitution of the interview committee, the qualification and status of each member of the respective committee for selection of each of the faculty from Director/Principal to lecturers as per the above lest at the time of his/her selection.
15. Whether appointment letters (which by practice or as mandated by AICTE norms form part of the compliance report as given in the latest report) were issued to each of them specifying detailed terms and conditions of their appointment? Copy of each letter separately may please be furnished.
16. How do the existing strength of faculty and other non-teaching staff at specific level in HIM compares with the AICTE norms? Is the institute being run with faculty short of its desirable strength? If yes, what action AICTE contemplates to take or what the regulations stipulate regarding reviewing/withdrawal of its approval for extension given to such institutes?
PIO's reply:
Not replied.
PIO M/o HRD transfer to RTI Application on 09/11/2009 to PIO AICTE.
Grounds for First Appeal:
No information received from PIO Order of the First Appellate Authority:
No order passed by FAA Grounds for Second Appeal:
No information received from PIO & FAA Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Varda Kaushik;
Respondent: Absent;
The appellant had filed RTI application addressed to PIO of AICTE with PIO of MHRD. The PIO of MHRD has transferred the application 09/11/2009 to Mr. Rajiv Kumar Kundi PIO AICTE. After this the appellant has received no information. From the submissions made by the Appellant it appears that the PIO has not done his duty as per the RTI Act.Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before 10 April 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 15 April 2010. He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 17 March 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(k.j.) Encl: Copy of the Second Appeal with RTI Application.
Page 3 of 3