Central Information Commission
Vinod Kumar vs University Grants Commission on 24 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/628566
Vinod Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: University Grants
Commission, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 22.12.2023 FA : 01.07.2024 SA : 03.07.2024
CPIO : 01.07.2024 FAO : 03.07.2024 Hearing : 15.07.2025
Date of Decision: 24.07.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
provide information pertaining to the enclosed UGC NET Certificates having following details:
a. UGC Reference No.: 2535/(NET JUNE, 2005) b. Name: Shri Jitendra Singh c. Father Name: Shri Begraj Singh d. Mother Name: Smt Harberi Devi Page 1 of 3 e. Certificate Number: 0542233 f. Roll Number: E090887 g. Exam Held On: 26 June 2005 h. Subject: EDUCATION i. Certificate Issued on: 21 July 2006 Information required
1. Whether above certificate is true and genuine as per the above-mentioned particulars. If any mismatch / error is noted kindly provide the information.
2. Kindly provide certified copy of the above UGC NET Certificate Number- 0542233 bearing roll number E090887.
3. As per UGC NET record to whom roll number E090887 was issued, kindly provide the certified copy of this roll number/relevant roll list.
4. As per UGC NET record to whom above UGC NET certificate 0542233 was issued, kindly provide the certified copy of this certificate.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The information desired by the applicant pertains to Third party information. Therefore, the candidates could not be provided the desired information under article 8.1(g) & 8.1(j) of RTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 03.07.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.07.2024.
Page 2 of 35. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent M.K. Meena, CPIO, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had not received the requisite information, so far.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought in the RTI application pertained to two other candidates, third parties, exempted from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 24.07.2025 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 Vinod Kumar Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)