Central Information Commission
Rohit Ravikumar vs All India Council For Technical ... on 7 September, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/AICTE/C/2020/682887
Rohit Ravi Kumar ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
All India Council for Technical
Education, RTI Cell, Nelson Mandela
Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/09/2021
Date of Decision : 06/09/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17/08/2020
CPIO replied on : 21/08/2020
First appeal filed on : 21/08/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 24/08/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24/08/2020
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI Application dated 17.08.2020 seeking the following information-1
"Please provide the detailed implementation procedure of AICTE Doctoral Fellowship (ADF) admission in the Academic year 2020-2021. Also provide copies of all orders, decisions, notification regarding National Doctoral Fellowship (NDP) for the Academic Year 2020-2021."
The CPIO replied to the Complainant on 21.08.2020 stating as under-
Being dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the Complainant filed a First Appeal on 21.08.2020. The FAA's order dated 24.08.2020 stated as under -
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission by filing the instant Complaint on the following grounds -
"....In both the replies I was told to refer the AICTE website for ADF guidelines. I have attached these guidelines. It may be noted that these are not the information I requested for. I had asked for information communicated between University and AICTE StDC, regarding how to avail the fellowship. i.e the detailed implementation procedure. Moreover, I have asked for copies of all orders, decisions and notification regarding ADF & NDF in 2020-21. I wasn't given both this information or any reference to this was made......"
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through audio-conference.2
Respondent: Sanju Chowdhari, Assistant Director & PIO present through audio- conference.
The Complainant reiterated the contents of his instant Complaint as stated in the preceding para and also expressed his dissatisfaction to the fact that the copies of the requisite correspondences (orders/decisions/notifications) by the AICTE to the Universities regarding implementation of ADF has not been provided to him by the CPIO till date.
The PIO relied on her written submission dated 03.09.2021 and submitted that reply alongwith relevant inputs has already been furnished to the Complainant through the letters dated 21.08.2020 and 24.08.2020, intimating him that the implementation of AICTE ADF guidelines containing the desired decisions, orders, etc. are in public domain. She further apprised the Commission that only an outline of the policy indicating the broad parameters regarding the scores and qualifications of the candidates is issued by the AICTE while the remaining detailed guidelines for implementation of the averred ADF scheme are defined by the individual University and therefore, it varies from University to University. She added that prior to 2020, the averred scheme was known as National Doctoral Fellowship i.e. NDF, however w.e.f. 2020-21 session, the scheme has been named as AICTE Doctoral Fellowship i.e. ADF.
Lastly, while rebutting the contentions of the Appellant, she explained that at the time of receipt of RTI Application, no direction/correspondence was forwarded to any University regarding implementation of the averred however, it was only in 2021 that a letter was issued to the Vice Chancellors of the Universities defining an outline of the NDF scheme.
The Complainant informed the Commission that in response to another RTI Application, however, he has received a letter of the AICTE addressed to the concerned University regarding implementation of the NDF scheme.
Decision The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the reply given by CPIO adequately suffices the information sought for by the Complainant as per the provisions of RTI Act.3
It is also pertinent to note that no relief for information can be ordered in the instant case as the Complainant has not properly exhausted the channel of his First Appeal in terms of RTI Act i.e. by filing the instant Complaint without waiting for completion of stipulated period of 45 days.
In view of above, no further action is warranted in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 4