Central Information Commission
Rahul Srivastava vs University Grants Commission on 9 November, 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/2020/112853
Rahul Srivastava ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
University Grants Commission,
RTI Cell, South Campus-Delhi
University, NET, Benito Juarez
Marg, New Delhi-110021.v
CPIO,
University Grants Commission (UGC),
RTI Cell (PP Cell), Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110002. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 04/10/2021
Date of Decision : 25/10/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02/12/2019
CPIO replied on : 06/12/2019
First appeal filed on : 24/01/2020
1
First Appellate Authority's order : 18/02/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26/02/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.12.2019 seeking the following information:
पी.एच पी एच.डी
1. "पी एच डी.
डी म वेश लेने से पूव (अगर अगर ि NET/SLET है तो) तो कािशत शोध-प शोध प , प सेिमनार, मनार कायशाला आ द को अकादिमक िन पादन संकेतक (APIs) हेतु मा य ह गे या उनका आंकलन कस कार होगा ?
2. रा ीय व रा य पा ता प!र"ा (NET/SLET) क# यो%यता परा&ातक है या परा&ातक क# द"ांत उपािध ? (या द"ांत उपािध क# जगह अ*थायी उपािध (Provisional Degree) *तुत करने पर पा ता माण प लंिबत कया जा सकता है?
3. रा य पा ता प!र"ा (SLET) को उ/ीण करने के उपरा त कािशत शोध-प शोध प उसी रा य म मा य ह गे या सभी रा य म मा य ह गे ?"
The CPIO furnished reply to the appellant on 06.12.2019 against point Nos. 2 & 3 of the RTI application and with regard to Point No. 1 CPIO transferred the RTI application to the Pay Scale Bureau of UGC for providing information directly to the appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.01.2020. FAA's order dated 18.02.2020 furnished point wise reply to the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Shashi Malik, Under Secretary & CPIO along with Ravinder Singh, Under Secretary & CPIO present through audio conference.2
The Appellant stated that he has not received the desired clarification regarding eligibility of NET/SLET qualification for enrolling in PH.D programme from the CPIO.
The CPIOs submitted that the available and relevant information has been provided to the Appellant and there is no further information to add in this regard.
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, 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 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) 3 In view of the foregoing, the Commission upholds the submission of the CPIOs.
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