Central Information Commission
Dr Dilip Panwar vs University Grants Commission on 14 November, 2022
CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/642016
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/642016
In the matter of:
Dr Dilip Panwar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
University Grants Commission
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi- 110002
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 27.07.2021
CPIO replied on : 10.08.2021
First Appeal filed on : 13.08.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 17.08.2021
Second Appeal received on : 10.07.2021
Date of Hearing : 11.11.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr Dilip Panwar, participated in the hearing through video
conferencing from NIC Nagaur
Respondent: Smt. Shashi Malik, Under Secretary, UGC and Shri Manjit,
UDC, participated in the hearing in person.
Page 1 of 5
CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/642016
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 27.07.2021 seeking information on the following two points:
"The Context-
1) Rajasthan Govt. (Commissioner College Education, Jaipur) is asking for API scores even from those teachers who have been on UGC Teacher Research Fellowship(TRF) for doing Ph.D. which is leading to denial of promotion benefits to the concerned faculties. ( copy enclosed)
2) A TRF Fellow is required to be in full time engagement in Ph.D. work during the time of fellowship and he/she fulfils all the UGC mandated requirements of research papers and conferences before the submission of thesis.
3) As per the application format for TRF, all the three concerned parties i.e. the UGC, the Government and the concerned College gave written assurance to protect the promotion/increment benefits related to the tenure of TRF.(copy enclosed)
4) UGC public notice of 5 sept. 2018, relaxes APIs for duration of different types of leaves and deputation. TRF or academic leave is not mentioned. (copy enclosed) Kindly reply to following queries-
Q1 . Are TRF fellows excluded from the grading assessment of API related to the duration of their fellowship in the matter of promotion under CAS? (Relaxation/Exclusion means extrapolating same API score of non TRF period over TRF period? Reply Yes OR No Q2. If the answer to the Q. 1 is No, then how the calculation of API scores or grading assessment will be done for the specific duration of TRF for any faculty member?
Reply Kindly, issue a separate circular to clarify the API calculation method for TRF duration of the faculty members. Due to lack of clarity, the state govt. is refusing the promotion benefit by strictly demanding the teaching related API scores even for the TRF period. This is obviously impossible to fulfil. UGC timely action is the only hope for the teachers who did Ph.D. under TRF."
The CPIO vide online reply dated 10.08.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:
Page 2 of 5CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/642016 Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.08.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide online reply dated 17.08.2021, informed as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application.
At the instance of the Commission whether there are any specific rules for calculating API scores for TRF duration of Faculty members, the Respondent submitted that there are no explicit rules regarding the same. She further refers to UGC public notice dated 05.09.2018, regarding calculation of API scores for all such periods of duration which have been spent by the teacher on different kinds of paid leaves such as Maternity Leave, Child Care Leave, Study Leave, Medical Leave, Extraordinary Leave and Deputation and the same has been sent to the Appellant vide letter dated 10.11.2022. She further advises Appellant to give a representation in UGC's Pay Scale Section.Page 3 of 5
CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/642016 A written submission has been received by the Commission from Smt. Shashi Malik, Under Secretary/CPIO, UGC, vide letter dated 10.11.2022 and the same has been marked to the Appellant, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the reply provided by Respondent vide letter dated 10.11.2022 is adequate and the Commission upholds the same.
Be that as it may, the reply provided by the then CPIO vide letter dated 10.08.2021 is misleading and the Commission admonishes the then CPIO for providing such mindless and incongruous reply.
A copy of this order shall be served upon the then CPIO by the present CPIO.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 14.11.2022 Page 4 of 5 CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/642016 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) University Grants Commission Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002
2. The Central Public Information Officer University Grants Commission Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002
3. Dr Dilip Panwar Page 5 of 5