Central Information Commission
B Shanmugasundaram vs All India Council For Technical ... on 13 August, 2019
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/AICTE/A/2018/118977/01343
File no.: CIC/AICTE/A/2018/118977
In the matter of:
B Shanmugasundaram
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/ Astt. Director (AB)
All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj,
Delhi - 110070
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 06/09/2017 CPIO replied on : 25/10/2017 First appeal filed on : 27/10/2017 First Appellate Authority order : 22/12/2017 Second Appeal dated : 10/03/2018 Date of Hearing : 08/08/2019 Date of Decision : 08/08/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present in person
Respondent: Ms Ruchika Kem, Assistant Director & CPIO alongwith Shri Manoj Singh, Assistant Director &PIO and Ms Sanju Choudhary, all present in person.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Whether the RR and Minimum Qualifications for all teaching cadres WAS notified and mandated on the date of affiliation of every program by AICTE- in Diploma level Institution.1
2. Date of affiliation of Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology by AICTE, date of notification of RR and Minimum Eligibility Criteria for all teaching cadre for this programme by AICTE.
3. Define a professional course and state its characteristics.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO particularly on point no. 3 of the RTI application as there is no definite definition of Professional Course and due to its different interpretation by different organisations, a large number of people are being deprived of their career benefits.
The CPIO submitted that available information had been provided to the appellant vide letters 05.01.2107, 10.10.2017 & 25.10.2017. She further submitted her latest reply dated 06.08.2019 and also handed over a copy of the submissions to the appellant.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the replies dated 10.10.2017 & 25.10.2017 were proper. However, the recent reply dated 06.08.2019 is comprehensive and detailed, which was also handed over to the appellant during the hearing.
During the hearing, the appellant raised his prime concern that since there is non-standardization of the term "Professional Course" and no common definition and there arises anomalous situations where career benefits are deprived to various citizens including the appellant himself were he has been deprived of promotions even after 09 years of service. Since it is not classified as a part of policy matter, a proper and classified definition should be given to this term.
2File no.: CIC/AICTE/A/2018/118977 Decision:
Based on the above observations, the Commission upholds the reply of the PIO dated 06.08.2019 and find no scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appellant is advised to approach the Ministry of HRD and concerned authorities of AICTE with his representation to seek clarity on this issue as the Commission has no role to play as far as policy matters are concerned.
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 3