Central Information Commission
Mohit vs Indira Gandhi National Open University ... on 5 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
Complaint No. CIC/SA/C/2016/900158/MP
Complainant : Shri Mohit Sharma, Gurgaon
Public Authority : MHRD/UGC, New Delhi
EIILM University, Sikkim
Date of Hearing : May 30, 2017
Date of Decision : June 2, 2017
Present:
Complainant : Not present.
Respondent : Shri R.I.S. Bhardwaj, Section Officer (DEB), UGC,
Shri D.K. Bhadri, Assistant Educational Adviser
(DL), MHRD - at CIC
RTI application : 10.12.2015
CPIO's reply : 14.12.2015
First appeal : NIL
FAA's order : NA
Complaint : 10.02.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Mohit Sharma, the complainant, sought verification of his graduation degree and mark sheets obtained from EIILM University.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) informed the complainant that the information sought by him was related to EIILM University and therefore, the information may be obtained from the Registrar, EIILM University which was a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO also forwarded the complainant's RTI application to the Registrar, EIILM University, for providing the information to the complainant, directly. The Registrar, EIILM University, does not seem to have responded to the complainant's RTI application, till date. In the meanwhile, the CPIO, University Grants Commission (UGC) vide letter dated 22.03.2016 transferred the complainant's RTI application u/s 6(3) to the Director, Directorate of Higher Education, State Govt. of Sikkim, for providing information to the complainant, directly. The complainant, alleging to not have received CPIO's response to his application, within the stipulated time period, filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), with a request to provide the desired information. The FAA did not adjudicate in the matter. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the Commission stating that no information/response was provided to his application till the date of filing of complaint by the CPIO and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide an opportunity to the complainant to verify the complainant's degree and certificate, as his job was at stake.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been issued to him.
4. The respondent from MHRD stated that the University was a private University established through an Act of State Legislature to award degrees through regular mode. However, subsequently it was closed down by the Sate Govt. of Sikkim since the University was issuing degrees to students and was running numerous programs through distance mode and opening unauthorized study centres beyond Sikkim without approval of UGC as per the UGC (Establishment and Maintenance of standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003. Various complaints were received by UGC from many students who had enrolled themselves for the programs offered by the University that the University was misleading and defrauding them by issuing degrees without conducting any exam or practical and therefore, a committee was constituted by UGC to visit the University and look into the matter. The committee found that the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar were absconding and based on the recommendations received from the Committee, the State Govt. closed down the University and now, the students who had enrolled themselves through distance mode learning for the University desired to know the status and validity of their degrees awarded by the University from UGC and MHRD. Further, UGC had taken up the matter with the State Govt. to examine and validate such degrees for protection of the interests of various students. The respondent added that the matter was now under consideration before the Higher Education Department, Govt. of Sikkim and any information in this regard could only be provided by the Department concerned and complainant's RTI application had been duly transferred to the Director, Directorate of Higher Education, Govt. of Sikkim. The Commission noted with concern that the respondent from UGC, to whom the matter pertained to, was not at all prepared for the case and the CPIO himself did not attend the hearing in person.
5. On hearing the respondents and perusing the available records, the Commission finds that the appellant's RTI application was transferred u/s 6(3) by the CPIO, UGC vide letter dated 22.03.2016, to the Director, Directorate of Higher Education, State Govt. of Sikkim, for providing information to the complainant, directly, as the matter is now being dealt by that Department. However, the Commission has taken a serious note of the fact that the officer deputed by the CPIO was not at all conversant with the case and the CPIO himself did not attend the hearing in person and, therefore, advises the CPIO to attend the hearing, in person, in future. The Commission advises the complainant to follow up the matter before the Higher Education Department, Govt. of Sikkim., for further action in this regard. No further intervention is called for in the matter. The complaint is closed.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer Shri Mohit Sharma, Ministry of Human Resource Plot No. 184, Boys P.G., Development, Mohiyal Colony, Sector - 40, Assistant Education Adviser (DL), Gurgaon, Haryana - 122 002 Department of Higher Education, Distance Learning Division, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 The Central Public Information Officer University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management (EIILM) University, Jorethang, District - Namchi, Sikkim - 737 121