Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Dr Raminder Shri Singla vs University Grants Commission on 1 June, 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/2019/649733

Dr. Raminder Shri Singla                                 ....अपीलकता /Appellant



                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम


CPIO,
University Grants Commission
(UGC), RTI Cell, Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi - 110002.                          .... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                   :   31/05/2021
Date of Decision                  :   31/05/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on          :   26/06/2019
CPIO replied on                   :   13/07/2019
First appeal filed on             :   16/07/2019
First Appellate Authority order   :   Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   03/09/2019



                                         1
 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.06.2019 seeking clarification of letter noF.20-1/2014(PS/M/HRD/VIPRef) dated 20-02-2017 about guiding/having guided Doctoral candidates experience, clarify the following points.

1) For the clarification of the subject in above mention letter no, kindly provide a copy of reference letter no:- MDUTA/3018 dated 24-11-2016 against which this letter was issued.

2) Clarify the meaning of Experience of Associate Professor of guiding at Doctorate level is verifiable research and Ph.D. degree awarded. Is this mean, it is an eligibility condition to guide the Doctoral candidate or to guide Ph.D. candidate only or something else.

3) Clarify the meaning of Experience of Associate Professor having guided at Doctorate level is verifiable research and Ph.D. degree awarded. Is this mean, it is the minimum eligibility condition for the promotion of assistant professor to associate professor under CAS for teachers or something else. If yes, whether this condition is applicable to private college teachers or not.

4) According to this letter, is an assistant professor must guide a minimum one Doctoral candidate, as a minimum eligibility condition for the promotion from assistant professor to associate professor under CAS in private colleges.

5) Clarify, is there any difference between Doctoral candidate or Ph.D. Candidate in UGC regulation.

The CPIO replied to the appellant on 13.07.2019 stating as follows:-

"Please refer Clause 4.3.0 of UGC Regulation, 2018. PIO not supposed to solve the problem and give opinion. He/she can provide material/information in his/her custody under RTI Act. Appellant may obtain the letter from the concerned authority.

Mrs. C.P. Gaur Under Secretary and PIO."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.07.2019. 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: Represented by Supriya Dahiya, Education Officer present through audio-conference.

The Appellant stated that complete information along with desired clarifications was not given by the CPIO.

The Rep. of CPIO submitted that timely response was provided to the Appellant. She further submitted that a complete set of desired information along with a revised reply was also furnished to the Appellant on 28.05.2021.

The Appellant denied the receipt of the averred latest reply.

Upon query from the Commission, the Rep. Of CPIO agreed to resend a copy of written submission dated 28.05.2021 through email to the Appellant.

Decision:

The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the queries raised by the Appellant are purely in the form of seeking clarifications from the CPIO which do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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.

This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information 3 sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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) Nonetheless, the reply given by CPIO earlier and now adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

Now, considering the proceedings during hearing, the CPIO is directed to resend a copy of entire set of written submission dated 28.05.2021 along with relevant enclosures free of cost to the Appellant through email at [email protected]. The said direction shall be complied within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5