Central Information Commission
Prabhakar vs University Grants Commission on 5 July, 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/2019/154160
Prabhakar ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
University Grants Commission,
RTI Cell, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
ITO Road, Metro Gate Number 3,
New Delhi - 110002. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/07/2021
Date of Decision : 01/07/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/07/2019
CPIO replied on : 17/08/2019
First appeal filed on : 04/09/2019
First Appellate Authority's order : 25/10/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11/11/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 24.07.2019 seeking the following information:
1. "Can we get/take admission in two academic degrees at the same time (in the same academic year) at the same or two different universities? Please provide me detail rules and guidelines related to it.
2. Can we take admission/register at one university as a Ph.D scholar and at the same or other institute as any regular student of PG Diploma during the same course duration?
3. Can we join any government or private job during our Ph.D research work as per the rule?
4. I would be highly grateful to you if you would kindly provide me authentic related evidences/guidelines/rules for all the above mentioned questions."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 17.08.2019 stating as follows:-
"- You may refer to the UGC Notice regarding Clarification on Allowing Students to Pursue two Degree Simultaneously Published on 15/01/2016 at the following:-
URL.:http://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/5865506_UGCNotice_For_Two_Degree.pdf, which is self-explanatory.
Regarding pursuing a degree and a diploma / certificate course simultaneously, UGC has not framed any regulations. The issue is under consideration."
Being dissatisfied that incomplete information has been provided, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.09.2019. FAA's order dated 25.10.2019 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: Not present. (Notice of hearing returned undelivered with the remarks- "Addressee Left Without Instructions" and attempts made at connecting him for 2 audio conference on the mobile number available in the records was of no avail as the number remained 'switched off') Respondent: Vamsika, Education officer & CPIO present through audio conference.
The CPIO submitted that the available information was provided to the Appellant in response to the instant RTI Application.
Decision:
The current milieu of the COVID pandemic has necessitated the Commission to take some extraordinary steps in the disposal of cases to avoid further backlog and delays subverting the very purpose of RTI Act which includes inter alia hearing cases through audio conferencing. The instant case being one such instance where even so the Appellant could not be heard, the Commission is constrained to decide the case based on the strength of the material on record.
The Commission observes upon a perusal of the facts on record that the Appellant has not sought for any specific information in the RTI Application as he has merely sought for clarifications by the CPIO in a question answer format based on hypothetical situations, which does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Yet, the CPIO has provided a factual reply with relevant inputs on the issues raised by the Appellant.
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 since 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, his 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 3 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) In view of the foregoing observations, no action is warranted in the matter.
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 / 4