Central Information Commission
Sheelita Das vs University Grants Commission on 17 January, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/151492/02644
File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/151492
In the matter of:
Sheelita Das
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
University Grants Commission,
Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110002
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 21/03/2018 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 19/05/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 16/08/2018 Date of Hearing : 16/01/2020 Date of Decision : 16/01/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Shivanand Basu, Representative, Present over VC Respondent: Kundla Mahajan, Under Secretary, Lokesh Kumar Jangaa, S.O., Present in Person Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information with reference to notice in regard to the territorial jurisdiction issued by UGC on 23 August, 2013:
1. Whether the said notice would have retrospective effect regarding issuance of the equivalence certificate or University of Calcutta would issue an Equivalence Certificate as per UGC policy?1
2. Whether Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication, Bhopal approved by UGC was entitled to conduct MA degree course through regular mode with Bharatiya Bhasha Parishad in Kolkata in 2010?
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant's representative submitted that the appellant is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. He further submitted that there was no reply received prior to the reply dated 09.01.2020 and hence it was severely delayed. He further pointed out that the appellant is aggrieved with the reply as she wants equivalence certificate to the effect that the M.A. degree awarded by Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication, Bhopal approved by the UGC and the course conducted by the Bharatiya Bhasa Parishad in Kolkata in Mass Communication is equivalent with the M.A. Course in Journalism and Mass Communication of the University of Calcutta. He further stated that UGC has put up a notice regarding territorial jurisdiction on 23rd August 2013 on the basis of which University of Calcutta declined the appellant's Equivalence Certificate. He further submitted that the Appellant had obtained M.A. Degree in the year 2010 before the said policy was enacted, but the Calcutta University is arbitrarily considering retrospective effect regarding issuance of the appellant's Equivalence Certificate on the basis of territorial jurisdiction. The decision in the matter should have been taken by the Authorities concerned regarding the issuance of equivalence certificate on the basis of the Rules and Regulations prevailing at the material time i.e. in 2010.
He requested for the following relief on behalf of the appellant:
1) To declare that the impugned notice dated 23.08.2013 issued by UGC regarding Territorial jurisdiction has no retrospective effect regarding issuance of equivalence certificate to the appellant.
2) To direct UGC to issue equivalence certificate to the effect that the M.A. degree awarded by Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication, Bhopal approved by UGC and the course conducted by the Bharatiya Bhasa Parishad in Kolkata in Mass Communication is equivalent to the M.A. Course in Journalism and Mass Communication of the University of Calcutta 2 File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/151492 The CPIO submitted that an apt reply was sent to the appellant vide letter dated 11.04.2018. On a query by the Commission they could not submit the speed post tracking details of the letter sent on 11.04.2018. Hence, the Commission could not consider the same as despatched. She further submitted that the first appeal was not received in their office. Furthermore, she submitted that after the receipt of the hearing notice of the Commission, point wise information as available with the UGC (CPP-I/PU) Section was provided vide letter dated 09.01.2020.
Observations:
Based on the averments of both the parties, the reply dated 09.01.2020 was examined and found that the CPIO had provided a revised reply and claimed the information sought in respect of point no. 1 of the RTI application is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act and in respect of point no. 2 of the RTI application, a copy of the letter no. F.9-8/2008 (CPP-I) dated 16.04.2009 was given.
The first reply dated 11.04.2018, though the despatch of the same was not established read as follows:
"Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita National University of Journalism, B-38, Vikas Bhawan, M.P. Nagar, Sone I, Bhopal-462 039, Madhya Pradesh has been established by an Act of State Legislature of Madhya Pradesh as a State University and is empowered to award degrees as specified by the UGC u/s 22 of UGC Act, 1956 through its own departments, its constituent colleges and/or through its affliated colleges in regular mode with the approval of concerned statutory bodies/councils, wherever required.
Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita National University of Journalism, B-38, Vikas Bhawan, M.P. Nagar, Sone I, Bhopal-462 039, Madhya Pradesh is not authorised to open study centre/off campus centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prof. Yash Pal vs State of Chhattisgarh.
The UGC has not granted any approval to the University to open off- campus/study centre.3
For information related to Distance Education you are requested to approach directly to the Distance Education Bureau of UGC, 35 Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi-110001."
The first reply was not point wise and the reply dated 09.01.2020 is pointwise and as per the RTI Act.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to send a copy of the reply dated 11.04.2018 to the appellant via speed post within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. The reply dated 09.01.2020 was found point wise and apt.
The CPIO should take note that replies to the RTI applications should invariably be point wise and as per the RTI Act and summary reply as contained in the reply dated 11.04.2018 should be avoided. In so far as the appellant's second appeal is concerned, it has no merit in the light of the RTI Act, moreover, the relief sought by her in her second appeal is beyond the purview of the RTI Act. She is advised to approach the appropriate court of law for relief.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4