Central Information Commission
Vibhu Unnikrishnan vs University Grants Commission on 16 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UGCOM/A/2025/104747
VIBHU UNNIKRISHNAN .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
RTI CELL, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI -110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.03.2026
Date of Decision : 09.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.10.2024
CPIO replied on : 28.10.2024
First appeal filed on : 29.10.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 29.11.2024
2nd Appeal dated : 27.12.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2024 seeking the following information:
"1) In the minutes of the 548th meeting of UGC, held on 9th September, 2020, it was mentioned that BITS Pilani has been allowed to continue with its Work Integrated Learning Programme (WILP). With this information, many individuals are pursuing this course and are graduating from the university. Kindly clarify whether the M. Tech degree obtained through WILP Programme (off-campus mode) is considered equivalent to the M. Tech degree obtained through full-time programme (on-campus mode).Page 1 of 5
2) If the answer to the Question No. 1 is No, kindly clarify the reason behind it.
3) On 4th March, 2022, UGC had communicated to Department of Space (DoS), vide letter no. F.No. 70-1/2022(DEB-III), that no recognition has been granted by the DEB-UGC or DEC to BITS Pilani for continuing the WILP programme beyond the academic year 2007-08. This is in contradiction with the minutes of the 548th meeting of UGC. Please clarify explicitly by providing a yes/no response for the following: Whether BITS Pilani has been officially granted permission by UGC (DEB- UGC) to continue with the WILP programme through off campus mode?
4) If the answer to the above question is No, kindly clarify the reason for not providing permission to BITS, Pilani to continue the WILP through off-
campus mode. Kindly provide a copy of the official communication send to BITS, Pilani in this regard.
5) Ministry of Education (Department of Higher Education, ICR division) vide letter no. F.No.11/7/2018-U3(A) dated 01st October, 2020 had communicated to Vice Chancellor, BITS Pilani that ---WILP related issue was considered by the Empowered Expert Committee (EEC) in its meeting dated 24.07.2020 and it was of the view that WILP should be allowed to continue with the recommendations suggested by UGC Expert Committee, under the Chairmanship of Prof. D.S. Chauhan, Vice Chancellor, GLA University, to be treated as guidelines. Further, UGC in its 548th meeting held on 09.09.2020 considered the recommendations of the EEC and approved the same with the instruction to strictly comply with the UGC guidelines in this regard as and when issued.
The copy of the letter was marked to The Chairman, Empowered Expert Committee for loE and also to Chairman, UGC. But as mentioned in Question no. 3 (above), UGC had communicated to DoS on 04th March, 2022 vide letter no. F.No. 70-1/2022(DEB-III), that no recognition has been granted by the DEB-UGC or DEC to BITS Pilani for continuing the WILP programme beyond the academic year 2007-08. Kindly clarify this contradiction.
6) If BITS, Pilani has been granted permission by UGC to continue with WILP (off-campus mode), why was it communicated to DoS, vide letter no. F.No. 70-1/2022(DEB-III), that no recognition has been granted?
Page 2 of 57) Kindly clarify whether the M. Tech degree obtained through BITS, Pilani WILP course (off-campus) can be considered as a valid degree for applying for Government jobs requiring M. Tech qualification."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.10.2024 stating as under:
"Reply:- I hereby inform you that Commission, in its 548 meeting held on 9 September 2020, approved the recommendations of the Empowered Expert Committee to allow BITS, Pilani to continue with its WILP programme. However, BITS, Pilani will have to strictly comply with the UGC Guidelines in this regard as and when issued."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.10.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 29.11.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Vibhu Unnikrishnan present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, SO and Shri Manish Kr Sewan, LDC present in person.
5. Written statement filed by the CPIO is taken on record.
6. Appellant while narrating the factual background stated that Ministry of Education (Department of Higher Education, ICR division) vide letter No. F.No.11/7/2018-U3(A) dated 01.10.2020 communicated to Vice Chancellor, BITS Pilani that Work Integrated Learning Programme (WILP) related issue was considered by the Empowered Expert Committee (EEC) in its meeting dated 24.07.2020 and that WILP should be allowed to continue with the recommendations suggested by UGC Expert Committee, under the Chairmanship of Prof. D.S. Chauhan, Vice Chancellor, GLA University, to be treated as guidelines. Further, UGC in its 548th meeting held on 09.09.2020 considered the recommendations of the EEC and approved the same with the instruction to strictly comply with the UGC guidelines in this regard as and when issued. With this information, many individuals including Appellant have Page 3 of 5 pursued this course and obtained degree from the University. However, when they produced their degree for employment, they came to know that UGC on 04.03.2022 informed Department of Space (DoS), vide letter No. F.No. 70- 1/2022(DEB-III), that no recognition has been granted by the DEB-UGC or DEC to BITS Pilani for continuing the WILP programme beyond the academic year 2007-08. The Appellant contended that this is in contradiction with the minutes of the 548th meeting of UGC. Hence, the Appellant through instant RTI application sought clarification on the factual anomaly which directly impacted his career prospects, however, he is aggrieved by the fact that satisfactory response was not furnished by the CPIO and FAA till date. Hence, this Second Appeal before the Commission seeking intervention in the matter.
7. Per contra, CPIO stated that a categorical reply in response to RTI application has already been provided to the Appellant in the first instance. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice from CIC, a revised reply was given to the Appellant vide letter dated 27.02.2026 by informing him on points No. 1 to 6 that UGC in its 548 meeting 09.09.2020, approved the recommendations of the Empowered Expert Committee to BITS, Pilani to continue with its WILP programme. However, BITS, Pilani will comply with the UGC guidelines in this regard as and when issued. On point No. 7 of RTI application, it was further informed to the Appellant that Employment falls within the scope of the employer organization. The rules related to recruitment, service and promotion are determined by the employing department. Decision:
8. Heard the parties.
9. On perusal of facts of the Appeal placed on record and considering the submissions of the parties, the Commission noted with concern that UGC letter dated 04.03.2022 addressed to Department of Space that no recognition has been granted by the DEB-UGC or DEC to BITS Pilani for continuing the WILP programme beyond the academic year 2007-08 apparently appears to be in contradiction with the minutes of 548th meeting of the UGC held on 09.09.2020 which says that as per recommendation of EEC, BITS Pilani was allowed to continue its WILP programme strictly as per the norms and guidelines of UGC.
10. On the other hand, the CPIO in response to RTI application averred that UGC in its 548 meeting 09.09.2020, approved the recommendations of the Page 4 of 5 Empowered Expert Committee to BITS, Pilani to continue with its WILP programme. Further, BITS, Pilani will comply with the UGC guidelines in this regard as and when issued.
11. However, on being asked by the Bench as to the clarity on the anomaly raised by the Appellant, the CPIO was unable to provide any substantial response. In view of this, the Commission finds it fit to allow the Second Appeal. Therefore, Second Appeal is allowed.
12. The CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of the RTI Application in question in the light of the two documents i.e. UGC letter dated 04.03.2022 addressed to DES and minutes of 548th meeting of UGC held on 09.09.2020, and provide a point-wise revised categorical reply along with permissible supporting documents, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The revised reply shall be provided to the Appellant, free of cost, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Vibhu Unnikrishnan Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)