Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vaishna Narang vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 21 April, 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/JNUND/A/2019/138854

Vaishna Narang                                            .....अपीलकता /Appellant



                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम


CPIO,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
Room No. 133, RTI Cell, (Admn Block),
New Delhi - 110067.                                     .... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                   :     20/04/2021
Date of Decision                  :     20/04/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :              Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on          :     12/05/2019
CPIO replied on                   :     20/05/2019
First appeal filed on             :     21/06/2019
First Appellate Authority order   :     Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :     08/08/2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 12.05.2019 seeking the following information on six points regarding appellant's student, Mustafizur Rahman not 1 been given his Ph.D degree even after he successfully defended his thesis in a viva voce examination held on 11th March 2019 in the Centre for Linguistics, Chairperson's office:

1. "Was the thesis submitted in July 2018 thus signed by the three supervisors, Professor Pradeep Kumar Das, Professor Vaishna Narang and Dr Salonee Priya?

2. When the examiner s reports came to the centre, did the chairperson mark the same to the first two supervisors?

3. Was Professor P K Das on leave for five days for writing the UGC NET EXAM?

4. Was the viva voice held on 11th of March in the chairperson s room in the centre for linguistics in the presence of two supervisors, professor Vaishna Narang as joint supervisor and Dr Salonee Priya as co-supervisor. Also, was Prof P K Das was on leave for 5 days including the day of the viva voce examination of Rahman?

5. Is it a fact that on successful completion of the viva, the reports were duly signed by the two examiners, two out of three supervisors, and the chairperson and the Dean of the school as per JNU norms and conventions?

6. Has the candidate been awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, or at least a provisional degree which he could produce in his parent organization in Bangladesh?"

The CPIO provided a point-wise reply to the appellant on 20.05.2019. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

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: Manoj Kumar Manuj, Dy. Registrar & CPIO (Evaluation Branch); Vinod Kumar, Section Officer & CPIO (Language) and Anil Bajaj, Asst. Registrar (Academic Branch) present through audio conference.

The Commission at the outset remarked upon a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, yet the CPIO has provided adequate inputs on all points of the RTI Application leaving no scope of intervention at this stage.

The Appellant did not contest the observations of the Commission but desired to bring on record the context in which the instant RTI Application was filed by her. In this regard, she stated that the student under reference, Mustafizur Rahman was her student, but during the pendency of his degree she retired and served as the co-supervisor during his VIVA, while the Supervisor who was assigned in her place was not present for the same, the VIVA was conducted in the presence of the other members, i.e the Chairperson and the Dean. She further explained that the VIVA was held on 11.03.2019 but up until a year after that no intimation was provided to the averred student about his degree and when he corresponded with the University under immense mental distress and also being faced with acute financial crisis, he was informed that the VIVA was declared null and void as the substitute supervisor Pradeep Kumar Das complained to the University administration that he was not informed about the VIVA and therefore as per the University Ordinances, the VIVA should be declared null and void and later the Chairperson also lent his support to the botched up narrative of the said supervisor. That, as a result of the connivance of the supervisor with the Chairperson and the University administration, the student was put through an extremely harrowing time, pushing him to even contemplate suicide, and it took her a lot of efforts to counsel the student to talk him out of taking any such extreme steps. She further stated that when the issue was ramped up, the University decided to conduct a second VIVA which has never perhaps happened in the history of JNU and even after that, it is only after intensive persuasion, and her intervention that the University issued the degree to the said student on 30.09.2020. She lastly prayed that the Commission may take note of the serious repercussions faced by the student in the face of the chaos created by the said Supervisor and that an inquiry may be caused into the same to ensure that no student is compelled to face the fate of Mustafizur Rahman in future.

Manoj Kumar Manuj, Dy. Registrar & CPIO (Evaluation Branch) did not expressly refute the contentions of the Appellant, rather explained that as per University Ordinances, if on account of any contingencies, one member of the interview committee is not available for VIVA, the Chairperson takes upon the role of the absentee member.

At this point, the Appellant reminded the CPIO that Pradeep Kumar Das, the supervisor under reference had intimated via email to the University that he will not be available for the VIVA on account of UGC NET preoccupations and had also stated that he has no issues in the remaining members going ahead with the VIVA.

Manoj Kumar Manuj, Dy. Registrar & CPIO (Evaluation Branch) explained that he has only recently taken charge of the Evaluation Branch so he cannot comment any further on the issue and stated that administration cannot be held responsible for academic rivalries, if any, imminent in the matter.

Decision Having heard the narrative of the Appellant, the Commission lauds her time and efforts in having persistently pursued the cause of a student and for bringing to the fora a prima-facie appalling case of chaos and lack of coordination amongst a few members of the academia belonging to one of the premier institutions of the country, so much so that it is said to have costed a student a whole year of his career and finances in addition to the overwhelming mental agony caused to him in the process.

Even as this could be a odd case of a single student, but since it has been brought to light by the concerted efforts of the Appellant through the channel of the RTI Act, it will be prudent to direct the Vice Chancellor, JNU to address this issue in the best possible way to offer reprieve to the averred student and to reinforce the belief of similar or upcoming scholars in the University administration.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4 Copy to:

Vice Chancellor Jawahar Lal Nehru University New Delhi-110067

--(For taking appropriate action in the matter) 5