Central Information Commission
Ritu vs University Grants Commission on 20 October, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UGCOM/A/2020/672609
Ritu ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
University Grants Commission
(UGC), RTI Cell, Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/10/2021
Date of Decision : 18/10/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09/03/2020
CPIO replied on : 26/04/2020
First appeal filed on : 27/04/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 20/05/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03/06/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.03.2020 seeking the following information:
1. "Vide the Regulation under section 10 i.e. (Counting of Past Services for Direct Recruitment and Promotion, Under CAS), whether Ad hoc services can be considered for counting of past service?
2. Please provide proper meaning/definition of Ad hoc services which UGC considered while making this rule.
3. Please provide copy of any order/circular published by UGC in this regard i.e. services that are equivalent to Adhoc service for counting of past service.
4. As per above said UGC regulation, what should be the pay/emoluments/remuneration for consideration of Adhoc service for past service counting. Please provide a copy of rule where it is mentioned.
5. As per UGC what types of services are covered under Ad hoc services for counting of past services? Please provide copy of such rules.
6. As per UGC what types of services are covered under Temporary services for counting of past services? Please provide copy of such rules.
7. Whether all non-regular services (of more than one year) with any nomenclature equivalent to Asstt. Prof. can be considered for counting past service under this clause. Please provide copy of such rules.
8. Provide information whether a Contractual service as College Lecturer/Asstt. Port: of more than five years can be considered under this clause.
9. Provide information whether a service as Guest College Lecturer/Asstt. Prof. of more than five years can be considered under this clause?
10. Provide the list of job titles (like part-
time/contractual/temporary/guest/extension lecturer etc.) that are equivalent to Adhoc service that can be considered for regularization under this Adhoc clause.
11. In different states, in many colleges (Govt./aided/Pvt.) which follows UGC regulations 2010, many teachers working under different job titles (like part-time/contractual/temporary/guest/ extension lecturer etc.) since a long time (more than five years); are they eligible for counting of their past service under this clause (if otherwise eligible except for the nomenclature of post they served)."
2The CPIO replied to the appellant on 26.04.2020 stating as under:-
"Please refer the clauses 10.0 and 13 of UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 alongwith UGC Public Notice No. F, 25- 1/2018(PS/Misc) dated 28th January, 2019. However, PIO not supposed to solve the problems and give opinion. He/She can provide material/information in his/her custody under RTI Act."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.04.2020. FAA's order dated 20.05.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Anurag through audio conference. Respondent: Shashi Malik, Under Secretary & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Rep. of the Appellant expressed their dissatisfaction with the refusal of the CPIO to provide the necessary clarifications regarding the import of Adhoc services mentioned in Section 10 of the averred UGC Regulations. He further insisted that if UGC does not provide the clarification which other authority will do so.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Application and asserted that Section 10 of the averred Regulations provides for all the conditions related to Adhoc services and argued that the Appellant cannot mortify the CPIO for not being able to provide clarifications under the RTI Act. She further advised the Rep. of the Appellant to seek for further clarifications, if desired through the appropriate channel.3
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information that has been sought for in the RTI Application as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for interpretations and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO based on speculative queries.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, her attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 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) Nonetheless, to facilitate the Appellant in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide to the Appellant a copy of the relevant and available extract of the averred Regulations wherein Adhoc conditions of service has been enumerated as was indicated by her during the hearing. The said information shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.4
The Appellant is further advised to pursue their grievance with UGC through proper channel.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5