Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Dr R Gunasundari vs Ut Of Puducherry on 23 February, 2026

                                                        CIC/UTPON/A/2024/634591


                                 के ीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                               बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं       ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTPON/A/2024/634591

Dr R Gunasundari                                          ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                     VERSUS
                                     बनाम
CPIO: Puducherry
Technological                                          ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
University-PTU (Govt. of
Puducherry), Puducherry

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 01.02.2024              FA     : 24.04.2024          SA      : 09.08.2024

CPIO :   Not on record        FAO : Not on record          Hearing : 13.02.2026


Date of Decision: 13.02.2026
                                        CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                      Shri P R Ramesh
                                       ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. With reference to the RTI response No.PEC Esti(T)E 11/RTI 2018/No. 308 dated 16.2.2018 from Puducherry Technological University Erstwhile Pondicherry engineering college), is there any audit objection. If so, please provide the aud olyection para.

2. If the audit objection is dropped, please provide the explanation given to drop the audit objection para.

CIC/UTPON/A/2024/634591

3. Give the order from audit office for dropping of audit objection.

4. Details of action initiated as per AICT norms to change the promotion date or to recover the excess payment as indicated in para 2 and part 3 in RTI response No.PEC. Estt(T)/E11/RTI/2018 No. 308 dated 16.2.2018.

5. If no action is taken, is there any decision note related to it. Please provide details....etc.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 24.04.2024 FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.08.2024.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present through video-conference.

Respondent: Ms. Kalaislevi, Assistant Registrar- participated in the hearing.

4. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provided to her. She averred that the documents furnished in response to point No. 1 of the RTI Application is not the correct document as sought in the instant RTI Application. A written submission dated 05.02.2026 has bene received from the Appelant and same has been taken on record for perusal.

5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant. She averred that the documents as available in their records in reference to the queries raised in the instant RTI APplication has been duly provided to the Appellant. A reply dated 02.02.2026 has been furnished by the PIO. The relevant extract of the reply is as under:

1,2,3Copy enclosed.

4, 5 Particulars not available.

CIC/UTPON/A/2024/634591 6,7,8.Requested information which seek reasons, interpretations, or opinions. do not fall within the purview of "information" as defined under the Right to Information Act. 2005.."

Decision:

6. Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. Since the response of the PIO is found appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमे श) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO O/o the Deputy Registrar-(Estt.), Puducherry Technological University-PTU (Govt. of Puducherry), East Coast Road, Pillaichavady, Puducherry-605014.

2 Dr R Gunasundari Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)