Central Information Commission
Inam Ul Rehman vs University Of Kashmir on 17 March, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UNVKS/A/2024/638022
Shri Inam Ul Rehman ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, University of Kashmir, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
UT of Jammu & Kashmir
Date of Hearing : 07.03.2025
Date of Decision : 12.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.04.2024
PIO replied on : 10.06.2024
First Appeal filed on : 27.05.2024
First Appellate Order on : 24.06.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 27.08.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.04.2024 seeking information on twenty points, some of which are as under:-
1. "Whether EMMRC Srinagar is teaching or non-teaching department.
2. Number of teaching posts in EMMRC Srinagar.
3. Number of media technical staff positions in EMMRC Srinagar.
4. Kindly specify do the media technical staff of EMMRC come under the Teaching wing or non-teaching wing of the University of Kashmir.
5. Kindly specify reasons or statutes for two different orders, promotion for 4 media technical staff and placement order for 10 media technical staff of EMMRC, when the promotion policy is same for all media technical staff. (copy attached)
6. Please provide a certified copy of promotion policy documents sent by the UGC- CEC for the media technical staff of EMMRC Srinagar.
7. Copy of the document/s on the basis of which a tab on pay grades of media technical staff of EMMRC Srinagar was done.
8. Copy of documents on the basis of which pay grade of media technical staff of EMMRC Srinagar were fixed.
9. Several committees were formed to look into the promotion policy of EMMRC media technical staff as sanctioned by the UGC-CEC in September 2020, kindly provide certified copies of recommendations by all the said committees formulated for the purpose of promotion.Page 1 of 4
10. Kindly provide a signed copy of the existing pay grades structure of the technical employees and officers of the University of Kashmir. ETC."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.05.2024.
The CPIO, Assistant Registrar, University of Kashmir vide letter dated 06.06.2024 replied as under:-
Point No 01: EMMRC is a Research Centre Point No 02: Pertains to Budget & Creation Section.
Point No 03: The inplace Media Technical Staff promoted in EMMRC is as under:
a. Mr. Shafaqat Habib Hafiz, Producer b. Mr. Mr. Aijaz-ul-Haq, Profudeer c. Mr. Tariq Abdullah, Producer d. Mr. Muzaffar Ahmad Dar. Assistant Engineer The promotion has been done as per the Promotional Policy of 1997, restored for the Staff of EMMRC by the UGC duly examined and recommended by the constituted committee Point No 04: The personal files pertains to above 04 technical staff are lying with the Teaching Wing at present Point No 05: No comments Point No 06: Enclosed Annexure- I Point No 07: Same as in the point 06 Point No 08: Same as in the point 06 Point No 09: Enclosed Annexure-II Point No 10: Pertains to Accounts Section Point No. 11:- Pertains to Educational Multi Media Research Centre. Point No. 12:- Pertains to Educational Multi Media Research Centre Point No. 13:- Pertains to Educational Multi Media Research Centre Point No. 14:- Pertains to Recruitment Section Point No. 15:- Pertains to Recruitment Section Point No. 16:- Pertains to Recruitment Section Point No. 17:- Pertains to General Administration Section Point No. 18:- Pertains to General Administration Section Point No. 19:- Pertains to General Administration Section Point No. 20:- Office of the Public Information Officer The First Appeal filed by the Appellant was decided by the FAA vide order dated 24.06.2024 as under:-
"After hearing and going through the available records, it has been observed that part information stands delivered to the appellant. However, the Public Information Officer is directed to obtain the pending information from the concerned quarters and furnish the same to the appellant within 10 working days positively. Furthermore, with regard to point no. 18,19 &20, the Public Information Officer may furnish the report whether objection from third party has been received or not. Hence the appeal is disposed off."
The PIO, Administration Department furnished a reply dated 25.06.2024 with 31 enclosed pages.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 2 of 4Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 25.02.2025 has been received from the CPIO, University of Kashmir reiterating the above facts and adding the following:
13. The Recruitment & Budget & Creation returned the case with the remarks that the information can be had from Development and case was accordingly forwarded to them. (Annexure-F)
14. The office of Development furnished the information with regard to item 2 and EMMRC department furnished the information with regard to item 11,12 & 13 which stands delivered to the applicant on 25.06.2024.(Annexure-G)[110] The aforementioned reply dated 25.06.2024 is enclosed with the submission and reveals that relevant documents including Statutes and rules governing the EMMRC staff, MoUs signed between the University of Kashmir and UGC-REC, document sent to UGC to determine financial implications of the promotional policy etc. are enclosed as Annexures A, B and C with the reply.
The Respondent/Assistant Registrar, Administration - TW has also furnished information with respect to query number 4, vide letter dated 08.10.2024.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Ghulam Ahmad Wani - PIO/Assistant Registrar, University of Kashmir was present during hearing through video conference.
The Appellant expressed dissatisfaction stating that information provided to him was not adequate. Respondent present during hearing stated that considering the Appellant's queries spread over multiple divisions of the University, whatever information/records could be collected, the same have been duly provided to the Appellant as mentioned above.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, it is noted that information sought by the Appellant has resulted in a roving and fishing query related to voluminous data bordering on attracting provisions of the Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
In the given scenario, the responses sent by the Respondent appear adequate and appropriate, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not specified the inadequacy in the information pointing out the exact query which has not been answered adequately by the Respondent and hence specific direction cannot be given to the Respondent.
If the Appellant is able to identify any specific shortcoming with response to any specific query, he is at liberty to approach the relevant custodian of information seeking the exact information. The Respondent shall facilitate access to information to the Appellant. However, it is made clear that the Respondent public authority is under no obligation to collect or collate information from myriad divisions or units in the event Page 3 of 4 that such information is not held specifically in their custody nor are they mandated to maintain such records in terms of the Apex Court decision dated 09.08.2011 in the case titled Central Board Of Secondary Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. which holds as under:
"..where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. .."
In the light of the aforementioned discussion, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)