Central Information Commission
Jitender vs University Grants Commission on 23 September, 2025
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
वतीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/656469
Jitender ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
University Grants Commission, ... तवाद गण/Respondents
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04.11.2024 FA : 09.12.2024 SA : 18.12.2024
CPIO : Not on record FAO : 13.12.2024 Hearing : 22.09.2025
Date of Decision: 23.09.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1) Computer Lab Assignments: Number of computer labs typically assigned to an STA (Computer) as per UGC guidelines.
2) Cadre Classification: The cadre under which the STA (Computer) post has been established (e.g., Administration, Laboratory, Accounts).
3) Defined Duty List: A copy or description of the duty list defined by the UGC for STA (Computer).Page 1 of 3
4) Supporting Staff Norms: Supporting staff posts allocated to assist an STA (Computer) as per UGC norms.
5) Workload Assignment Criteria: UGC guidelines, if any, for workload assignment based on lab size, number of users, or equipment managed.
6) Performance Evaluation Standards: If available, any performance evaluation standards or metrics set by the UGC for STA (Computer) specifically.
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.12.2024. The FAA vide order dated 13.12.2024 directed the CPIO to provide the requisite information to the applicant immediately and also directed the CPIO to adhere to the prescribed timeline for providing the requisite information in accordance with the RTI Act/Rules.
3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.12.2024.
4. The appellant remained absent despite service of hearing notice in advance and on behalf of the respondent Shri Lokesh Kumar Jangra - Under Secretary attended the hearing.
5. The respondent while defending the case inter alia submitted that the Appellant had sought information which are not held by the UGC and hence he was informed vide communication dated 13.12.2024 to approach the relevant university. He referred to the written submission dated 11.09.2025 wherein the correspondence done with the Appellant vide reply dated 13.12.2024 has been duly mentioned.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the averments of the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the respondent is not the custodian of the information sought by the appellant and hence he had been informed accordingly vide communication dated 13.12.2024 that since the CPIO, UGC has no information, the appellant may approach the concerned university/authority. In the absence of the appellant and in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed hereinabove, Page 2 of 3 the Commission finds that no further intervention is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. Accordingly, the appeal at hand is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंद राम लंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त) दनांक/Date: 23.09.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO University Grants Commission, CPIO, RTI Cell, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi -110002
2. Jitender Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)