Central Information Commission
Shivanshu Kumar vs University Of Delhi on 19 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UODEL/A/2025/618932
Shivanshu Kumar .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI,
RTI CELL, DELHI -110007 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.03.2026
Date of Decision : 18.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.02.2025
CPIO replied on : 10.03.2025
First appeal filed on : 13.03.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.04.2025
2nd Appeal dated : 25.04.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.02.2025 seeking the following information:
"I am student of Delhi University SOL pursuing for course B.A. (hons.) English semester part VI. Exam Roll No. 21345000358, I was allotted Shyamlal College University of Delhi Shahdara, Delhi 110032, in May-June 2023-24 examinations. I attended all my exams on prescribed time very attentively but in the result which has been declared on 12 July 2024 I have been marked as absent in my last exam Literature And Disability, Unique Paper Code 12037618, which was conducted on 5 June 2024.Page 1 of 3
Sir, I have also visited Delhi University exam branch twice but no solution has been given.
It is my humble request please help in making any solution, I will be highly obliged to you."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 10.03.2025 stating as under:
"The information sought by the applicant was endorsed to the Joint Registrar (Exams) / Nodal Officer (RTI-Exams) of the University, who is the deemed PIO under section 5(4) & 5(5) of the Act.
On perusal of the original application, it appears that the applicant has some grievance regarding his examination result and seeking its redressal through RTI Act, which cannot be treated as request for information as defined under section 2(f) of the Act.
However, input received from the Joint Registrar (Exams), indicates that the result of the applicant will be revised as soon as possible. The applicant can download his revised statement of marks from the University portal, www.exam.du.ac.in. The applicant may contact the Joint Registrar (Exams) / Section Officer (Exam-VI) on telephone nos. 011-27667729 (e-mail id [email protected]) for any further input which may be relevant in this regard."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.03.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 09.04.2025, stating as under-
"...On perusal of the records, it has been noticed that the CPIO has responded to the OA vide decision dated 10.03.2025 on the basis of the input received from the concerned deemed PIO in this matter.
2. On perusal of the OA, input provided by the Deemed PIO and the decision of the CPIO, it appears that available information has already been provided to the appellant. Therefore, no further relief can be granted to the appellant and the decision of the CPIO is upheld in this matter.
3. However, in case the appellant has any complaint/ grievance regarding his examination result related matter, he may take up the same with the Office of the Joint Registrar (Examinations) of the University administratively, as it cannot be addressed under the Act..."Page 2 of 3
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant facts emerged during hearing:
Following were present:
Appellant: Shri Shivanshu Kumar present through audio conference. Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, AR/CPIO along with Shri Rakesh Hasija, AR (Academic) and Shri Ghansyam Yadav, SO (Exams) present in person.
5. A letter dated 21.02.2026 filed by the Appellant is taken on record. Through this letter the Appellant stated that during pendency of this Second Appeal, he has received the desired information and is satisfied with the same. Therefore, he does not wish to pursue this Appeal any further and prayed the Commission that instant matter may be closed as withdrawn. Decision:
6. Considering the fact that after receiving the information sought, the purpose of Appellant filing the RTI application in question and also the instant Second Appeal was already served, the Commission finds no scope for intervention in the matter The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लग ं ी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Shivanshu 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)