Central Information Commission
Samriti Vohra vs University Grants Commission on 9 June, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2016/307457/MP
Appellant : Ms Samriti Vohra, Karnal
Public Authority : University Grants Commission, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : June 7, 2017
Date of Decision : June 7, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Represented by Shri Prem Vohra - through VC
Respondent : Shri Ajay K Joshi, SO and Satya Prakash, UDC - at
CIC
RTI application : 31.05.2016
CPIO's reply : 14.07.2016
First appeal : 23.07.2016
FAA's order : 26.08.2016
Second appeal : 07.09.2016
ORDER
1. Ms Samriti Vohra, the appellant, through her RTI application submitted that a few students took admission in four semesters two-years Masters' Degree course in 2003- 05 in a private university formed under Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Act and submitted their thesis at the end of the fourth and last semester but the private university was quashed by Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 11.2.2005. The Supreme Court, to protect the interests of the students, directed the State Government to take appropriate measures to have such institutions affiliated to the already existing State Universities. The Government in Chhattisgarh, however, failed to affiliate the university to a State university in time. The students concerned filed a CWP in the High Court of Chhattisgarh for declaring the result and issuing the degree and award list. The High Court vide its award of 2012 directed the State Government to follow the directions of the Supreme Court and in compliance to the High Court orders, the State Government arranged affiliation of the quashed private university to a state university who got the thesis evaluated in 2014 by its examiners even though the thesis had been submitted on 30.6.2005. The appellant's representative added that the state university was adamant to record the period of completion of two years PG course in the year 2014 on the Degree and other awards. He added that a number of universities in the country had evaluated the thesis much later than its submission but had not changed the duration of passing the "calendared course" and gave the example of Delhi University and Dr HSG University at Sagar. With this background, the appellant sought to know as to whether the year of having passed the exam would be when the thesis was submitted with the university at the end of the course or the later month/year when the thesis was evaluated by the examiner of the university after viva verse which was conducted much later.
2. The CPIO provided the copy of UGC (Grant of Degree & Other Awards by Universities), Regulations, 2008 and intimated that no more information was available with them. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority in appeal mentioning sub-paras 6.1 and 6.2 of para 6 of UGC Regulations, 2008 according to which any question as to interpretation of these regulations shall be decided by the UGC whose decision shall be final and binding on the university and that the Commission shall have the power to issue clarifications to remove any doubt, difficulty or anomaly which may arise in regard to implementation of these regulations and sought the same clarification as sought in her RTI application. The FAA advised the appellant to approach the Department of Higher Education of the State concerned and reiterated that no more information was available with them. Aggrieved, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission reiterating the points made in first appeal while requesting for complete and comprehensive information along with compensation and reimbursement of travelling, lodging and boarding expenses for attending the hearing and an entry in the service book/annual appraisal report of the CPIO and FAA concerned for defying the provisions of the RTI Act.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant's representative stated that the appellant had two questions regarding degrees and awards and the UGC, rather than provide her information, asked her to go to the Higher Education Department in the state whereas the UGC itself was responsible for rules and regulations relating to the degrees and awards. The UGC had not provided any information to the appellant in the case in question. The thesis had been submitted in June 2005 but before that the university concerned stood quashed and was affiliated to some other university much later in view of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order to ensure that the interests of the students did not suffer. The university proposed to give a degree mentioning the year as 2014 since the thesis was evaluated in that year. The students had, however, submitted the thesis in time and there was no reason that the students should be made to suffer for 7-8 years for no fault of theirs.
4. The respondents stated that they had provided the copy of the UGC regulations in question giving the procedure to be followed for grant of degrees and other awards that was mentioned in the para 4.4 of regulations. The respondents added that as per para 4.4 of the regulations, "the degree, award, date/s shall be within 180 days of the date/s by which the students are expected to qualify and become eligible for them". They added that as per para 6 of the regulations, relating to interpretation, the interpretation can be made on receipt of the representation from the appellant as at present no clarification in the matter was available with them which could be provided to the appellant.
5. On hearing both the parties and going through the available record, the Commission observes that the respondent authority has provided the information as available with them. Reliance can be placed on the decision in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 which is 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 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....."
6. The UGC (Grant of Degree & Other Awards by Universities), Regulations, 2008 empower the UGC to interpret the regulations and the decision of the UGC shall be final and binding and the UGC shall also have the power to issue clarifications to remove any doubt, difficulty and anomaly which may arise in regard to the implementations of the regulations, the appellant may, therefore, like to represent the matter to the UGC in view of the position that the student concerned will obviously suffer if a thesis submitted in mid-2005 is evaluated in 2014 and the degree is consequently awarded in 2014. The Commission would recommend to the UGC to consider the representation expeditiously as per the extant rules as the matter involves the future of a young student and with a view to protect the interests of the student. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority University Grants Commission, University Grants Commission Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110 002 New Delhi- 110 002 Ms Samriti Vohra RSC Legal Firm # 646, Sector-4 Housing Board Colony Karnal-132001 (Haryana)