Central Information Commission
Somen Paul vs University Grants Commission on 16 February, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UGCOM/A/2025/604633
SOMEN PAUL .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
RTI CELL, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR
MARG, NEW DELHI -110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.02.2026
Date of Decision : 12.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.11.2024
CPIO replied on : 03.01.2025
First appeal filed on : 10.12.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 01.01.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.11.2024 seeking the following information:-
"1. Is it mandatory for an in service college/university faculty to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the present institute to apply for or to face an interview for the same post or higher post in a preferred institution and to carry forward all the related benefits (pay protection, job continuation, leave, LTC, etc.) of the past service to the new job if selected?Page 1 of 6
2. Is it necessary for a faculty to obtain a NOC from the present institute to apply and to take admission for higher education or postdoctorate?
3. Can the competent authority reject the NOC application for any of the unjustified reasons: NOC cannot be issued during the probation period, the authoritys decision not to issue the NOC, the facultys unavoidable presence at the institution, or an undue delay in obtaining government approval to replace the faculty?
4. Is it possible for a faculty without a NOC to apply for or to face an interview for the same post or higher post in a preferred institution simply to intimate the competent authority in the prescribed manner if the present institute rejects the NOC application for any reason? Because it is a basic human right to go to higher positions or to seek employment in institutions of choice. In this case, can the faculty join the new job with all the benefits of the past service, if selected?
5. Is it possible for a faculty member without a NOC to apply and take admission for higher education or postdoctorate?
6. According to guidelines, within how many days after requesting a NOC is it required to respond to the competent authority?
7. If an in service college/university faculty does not receive any response within a reasonable time after asking for NOC in the present institute, i.e., if the competent authority does not issue or reject the NOC application, will it be considered deemed to be a NOC granted by the authority? Kindly provide the information as soon as possible and within the time frame stipulated under the RTI Act, 2005, by post.
In case the subject matter/any of the information is held by/related to another public authority, you are requested to forward the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority with an intimation to the undersigned as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. (A PDF file of my queries is attached)."
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2024.
3. The FAA vide its order dated 01.01.2025 held that "the CPIO is hereby directed to provide the requisite information to applicant immediately. The CPIO is further directed to adhere to the prescribed timeline for providing the requisite information in accordance with the RTI Act/Rules"
4. Meanwhile, the CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 03.01.2025 stating as under:-
"Please refer to UGC Regulations, 2018, which is self-explanatory and available on the below mentioned link.Page 2 of 6
https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/4033931 UGC-Regulation min Qualification Jul2018.pdf."
5. Challenging the CPIO's reply, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Somen Paul along with Shri Sumit, Advocate present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Dalbir Singh, US/CPIO present in person.
6. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
7. Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction to the fact that UGC Regulation 2018 which the CPIO referred in his reply do not answer all his queries given in the RTI application in question. Bench pointed out the Appellant that the question framed by the Appellant in the RTI Application are in the nature of seeking clarifications/inferences from the CPIO which do not conform to Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005, to which the Appellant did not raise any arguments, as such.
8. CPIO submitted that UGC Regulations 2018 which was informed to the Appellant vide initial reply are self-explanatory. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, CPIO revisited the contents of RTI application under reference and furnished a revised reply vide letter dated 10.02.2026 by stating that ".... with regard to information sought at Sl.No. 2 and 5 of the application for obtaining NOC to take admission for higher education or post-doctorate, UGC (Minimum Standard and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. degree) Regulations, 2022 is referred, which is also self-
explanatory and available on the UGC website at https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/0909572 Minimum-Standards-and- Procedure-for-Award-of-PhD-Degree.pdf. "
9. Appellant denied the receipt of averred reply. In response to which, the CPIO agreed to resend a copy of revised reply along with enclosures to the Appellant.
10. The Appellant contested that there is a delay caused by the then CPIO in giving the first reply after expiry of stipulated time frame for which he prayed the Commission that CPIO should be penalized. The CPIO tendered his apology Page 3 of 6 for delayed response in the first instance by the then CPIO and stated that the then CPIO has retired and he assumed the charge afterwards. Decision:
11. Heard the parties.
12. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records observed that dissatisfaction of the Appellant towards the reply of CPIO is bereft of merits as the queries raised in the RTI application are in the form of seeking clarifications which do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
13. The Commission, in this regard, relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied)
14. Therefore, it is evident from the fact that CPIO under the RTI Act, 2005 can provide only such information as is held by the Public Authority from the material available in records and not to deduce answers to the queries which does not form a part of his office records.
15. The Commission also placed reliance in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex- Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
Page 4 of 6"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied)
16. Nonetheless, the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO found to be in line with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter at this juncture.
17. However, as per hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of his revised reply along with enclosures, free of cost, to the Appellant within one week from the date of receipt of this order. A proof of service shall be uploaded by the CPIO on the CIC's portal, immediately thereafter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Page 5 of 6 Date Shri SOMEN PAUL Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)