Central Information Commission
B K Mishra vs University Of Delhi on 9 April, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका, नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/UODEL/A/2017/185469/00418
File no.: CIC/UODEL/A/2017/185469
In the matter of:
B K Mishra
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Association of Indian Universities
AIU House, 16 Comrade Indrajit Gupta Marg,
New Delhi - 110 002
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 03/08/2017 CPIO replied on : 10/08/2017 First appeal filed on : 01/09/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 22/09/2017 Second Appeal dated : 20/12/2017 Date of Hearing : 09/04/2019 Date of Decision : 09/04/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present
Respondent: Shri Shivam Dixit, Software Engineer & PIO along with Dr Alok Mishra & Sambhav Srivastava.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Does Association of India University (AIU) provide equivalence to MBA from the Indian Universities and PGDM awarded by private institutions in India.1
2. If yes, provide information that PGDM Degree awarded by Indira School of Business Studies, Pune, Maharashtra is equivalent/ at par with MBA degree awarded by other Indian University.
3. If both the degrees mentioned at point 2 above are not equivalent then under which rule, norms/clause of your constitution these are not equivalent.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the response of the CPIO particularly on point no 1 of the RTI application.
The PIO submitted that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant on 10.08.2017 which was confirmed by the FAA in his order dated 22.09.2017. He further submitted that on 02.04.2019, additional information and clarifications have been provided to the appellant and hence nothing more remains to be given.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and the recent submissions of the PIO dated 02.04.2019, it is noted that proper and detailed replies have been provided to the appellant. However, the appellant during the hearing has stated that he has not received the submissions dated 02.04.2019. Further, the Commissions upholds the submissions of the PIO. No further intervention is required in the matter.
Decision:
The PIO is directed to resend the submission dated 02.04.2019 free of cost to the appellant within 05 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) 2 File no.: CIC/UODEL/A/2017/185469 A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3