Central Information Commission
Dr. Prasad Pannian vs Central University Of Kerala on 27 February, 2026
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: Three Cases.
(1) CIC/CUKER/C/2025/117777
(2) CIC/CUKER/C/2025/117779
(3) CIC/CUKER/C/2025/117672
Dr. PRASAD PANNIAN ....िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
THE CPIO
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
RTI CELL, TEJASWINI HILLS,
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA-P.O.,
KASARAGOD-DISTRICT, KERALA-671325 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.02.2025
Date of Decision : 26.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Note- The above-mentioned Complaints have been clubbed together for
disposal through common order as the parties are common and the grounds
raised in the Complaints are identical in nature.
(1) CIC/CUKER/C/2025/117777
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 15.01.2025
CPIO replied on : 15.02.2025
First appeal filed on : 25.02.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 16.04.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.05.2025
Page 1 of 13
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 15.01.2025seeking the following information:
"1. The rank list of the interview process in which Dr. Asha S. was selected for the post of Assistant Professor.
2. The reasons for not appointing Dr. Asha S. from the published rank list. Please clarify whether this appointment was legally valid, along with certified copies of relevant rules or orders justifying such an appointment.
3. The appointment order of Dr. Asha S. for the post of Assistant Professor.
4. The score sheet used as the basis for appointing Dr. Asha S. as Assistant Professor.
5. The complete score sheet of all candidates who participated in the interview for the post of Assistant Professor in which Dr. Asha S. was appointed.
6. The latest order specifying the scale of pay for Dr. Asha S.
7. Confirmation of whether Dr. Asha S. was granted a grade pay of ₹9,000/-at the time of her appointment as Assistant Professor. Provide a certified copy of the order granting this grade pay, if applicable.
8. Confirmation of whether Dr. Asha S. was directed to repay any excess amount drawn from the university as Assistant Professor. If yes, provide a certified copy of the order directing her to repay the excess amount.
9. The appointment order promoting Dr. Asha S. to the position of Associate Professor.
10. The minutes pertaining Dr. Asha S. to the post of Associate Professor
11. The salary slip of Dr. Asha S. for the latest month.
12. The letter addressed by Dr. Asha S. to the Director of Research concerning the guide change requests of Ms. Devika Krishnan and Ms. Achu John.
13. The minutes of all Faculty Council meetings and DRC meetings held from 1st February 2024 to the present date.
14. The CAG report mentioning any excess salary drawn by Dr. Asha S.
15. The guide change requests submitted by Ms. Devika Krishnan and Ms. Achu John to the Director of Research in December 2024.
16. The order appointing Dr. Asha S. as HoD (i/c) in 2018
17. The order appointing Dr. VellikkeeRaghavan as HoD (i/c) in 2019."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 15.02.2025 stating as under:
Page 2 of 13"1. Attached
2. No clarification be provided by CPIO under RTI Act.
3. Attached
4. Exempted under S-8 (1) (j)
5. Exempted under S-8 (1) (j)
6. Academic Level 13
7. Yes
8. No clarification be provided by CPIO under RTI Act.
9. Attached
10. Attached
11. Exempted under S-8 (1) (j)
12. Details not available
13. Details not available
14. Not available
15. Confidential in nature. Cannot be disclosed.
16. Order dated 07.09.2018 attached.
17. Order dated 25.09.2019 attached."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 25.02.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 16.04.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
(2) CIC/CUKER/C/2025/117777 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 17.01.2025 CPIO replied on : 21.02.2025 First appeal filed on : 28.02.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 16.04.2025 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.05.2025 Information sought:
4. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.01.2025seeking the following information:
"1. List of Speakers: Provide the complete list of speakers who attended the International Conference.
2. Bills and Vouchers: Provide copies of all the bills and vouchers associated with the above-mentioned conference.
3. Total Amount Allotted: What is the total amount allotted for the conference? Please provide a copy of the order that approved and allotted this amount.Page 3 of 13
4. Total Amount Spent: Provide details of the total expenditure incurred for the conference.
5. International Delegates/Participants: How many international delegates/participants attended the conference in person (Offline)?
6. Reimbursed Bills for Guest Speakers: Provide copies of the reimbursed bills and vouchers for guest speakers, specifically for Prof. SaugataBhaduri and Prof. Simi Malhotra.
7. Bills for Online Lecture: Provide copies of the bills and vouchers related to the online lecture delivered by Prof. Dorothy Figuera.
8. Expenditure Statement: Provide the expenditure statement submitted by the Coordinator of the conference, Dr. Joseph Koyippally.
9. Settlement Certificate: Provide a copy of the settlement certificate issued to Dr. Joseph Koyippally in connection with this conference.
10. Bank Transaction Statement: Provide the complete bank transaction statement related to the payments made in connection with the above- mentioned conference."
5. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 21.02.2025 stating as under:
"1. Not held in possession
2. Not held in possession
3. Order attached
4. Order attached
5. Not held in possession
6. Not held in possession
7. Not held in possession
8. Not held in possession
9. Order attached
10.Not held in possession"
6. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 28.02.2025.The FAA vide its order dated 16.04.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
(3) CIC/CUKER/C/2025/117672 Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 13.01.2025 CPIO replied on : 13.02.2025 First appeal filed on : 20.02.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 16.04.2025 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.05.2025 Page 4 of 13 Information sought:
7. The Complainant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 13.01.2025seeking the following information:
"1. A copy of the order of promotion of Dr. Joseph Koyippally Joseph to the position of Professor at the Central University of Kerala.
2. Details of the UGC regulations under which Dr. Joseph Koyippally was promoted to the position of Professor.
3. A certified copy of the scoresheet signed by the experts during the CAS promotion interview of Dr. Joseph Koyippally.
4. Information on whether there has been any enquiry against Dr. Joseph Koyippally. If yes, provide the details of the enquiry, including its status.
5. A certified copy of the enquiry report, if any, against Dr. Joseph Koyippally, along with the file notes related to the enquiry.
6. A certified copy of the original application for CAS promotion submitted by Dr. Joseph Koyippally.
7. Titles of the publications authored by Dr. Joseph Koyippally that were considered for his promotion to the position of Professor.
8. Copies of the articles written by Dr. Joseph Koyippally, which were evaluated as part of the promotion process.
9. Copies of the file notes related to the CAS promotion of Dr. Joseph Koyippally.
10. Details regarding the nature of the teaching experience of Dr. Joseph Koyippally during / the period from 2009 to 2011.
11. Copies of the teaching experience certificates submitted by Dr. Joseph Koyippally for his initial appointment as Associate Professor at the Central University of Kerala."
8. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 13.02.2025 stating as under:
"1. Attached
2. UGC Regulations, 2010 2nd Amendment dated 13.06.2013
3. Exempted under S-8 (1) (j) 4 & 5. Questions not specific
6. Exempted under S-8 (1) (j) 7 & 8. Attached
9. Exempted under S-8 (1) (j)
10. Contract
11. Exempted under S-8 (1) (j)"
Page 5 of 139. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 20.02.2025.The FAA vide its order dated 16.04.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
10. Challenging the FAA's order, Complainant is before the Commission with the instant Complaints.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant:Dr. Prasad Pannian, present through video conference. Respondent: Shri SureshanKandathil, DR/CPIO present through video conference.
11. Written statement of the Complainant is taken on record. Contents of the same File No. wise are reproduced below for the ease of reference:-
CIC/CUKER/C/2025/117777:
"Although the reply bears the date 15.02.2025, it was received only on 24.02.2025 through postal delivery. Both the applicant and the public authority are located within the same university campus where an internal dispatch system exists. The effective date for the applicant is therefore the date of actual communication.
3. Scope of the RTI Request The RTI application contained 17 queries relating primarily to:
(i) Recruitment rank lists and score sheets,
(ii) Appointment and promotion records,
(iii) Pay fixation and financial orders,
(iv)Guide change requests and academic governance records,
(v) Minutes of institutional bodies and administrative correspondence.
The CPIO supplied certain limited documents but denied or inadequately addressed several core records.
4. Core Grounds of Challenge 4.1 Rank List Not Supplied (Query 1) The CPIO reply indicated that the recruitment rank list was enclosed. However, the rank list was not furnished with the reply received by me. A claim of enclosure without actual supply raises serious concerns regarding completeness and reliability of the disclosure.
4.2 Evasive Refusal Without Statutory Basis (Queries 2 and 8) For certain queries seeking reasons supported by records and confirmation of recovery-related orders, the reply stated that 'no clarification can be provided under RTI.' Such a response is not recognized under the RTI Act. Records must either be disclosed or denied with reference to specific statutory exemptions. 4.3 Improper Invocation of Section 8(1)(j) (Queries 4, 5 and 11) Page 6 of 13 Recruitment score sheets and related pay records were denied citing privacy under Section 8(1)(j). Recruitment to public posts and pay-related records concern public functions and public funds. Blanket denial without examining proportional disclosure is inconsistent with transparency principles.
4.4 Partial Disclosure of Pay Records (Queries 6 and 7) While certain pay-related information was acknowledged, certified copies of the underlying administrative orders were not furnished. Disclosure of pay fixation and grade pay orders is essential where public funds are involved. 4.5 'Not Available' Without Record Accountability (Queries 12, 13 and 14) Certain institutional records, including governance minutes and correspondence, were denied as 'not available' without explaining the record search conducted or record accountability.
Institutional minutes are ordinarily maintained and such responses warrant scrutiny.
4.6 Unjustified Confidentiality Claim (Query 15) Guide change requests were denied as confidential. A document cannot be denied merely by labeling it confidential unless supported by a specific exemption clause under the RTI Act.
4.7 Pattern of Selective Disclosure While certain appointment and promotion orders were supplied, the overall response reflects selective disclosure, incomplete documentation, and absence of reasoned speaking orders for denial.
5. Failure of First Appellate Authority The First Appellate Authority did not provide effective relief and did not address the substantive deficiencies in the CPIO reply, necessitating the present Second Appeal.
6. Larger Public Interest The information sought relates to transparency in public recruitment, accountability in expenditure of public funds, and integrity of academic governance in a Central University. These are matters of legitimate public interest under the RTI Act.
7. Reliefs Sought In light of the above, it is respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may:
1. Direct disclosure of complete and certified information sought in the RTI application.
2. Examine misuse of Section 8(1)(j) for recruitment-related records.
3. Review the accuracy and completeness of the CPIO reply, especially claims of enclosure.
4. Require reasoned speaking orders for all denials.
5. Consider appropriate action under Section 20, if deemed fit.
6. Consider compensation under Section 19(8)(b), if deemed appropriate.
7. Pass any furtherorders in the interest of transparency and accountability."Page 7 of 13
CIC/CUKER/C/2025/117779:
"1. Background This submission arises from the RTI application dated 17 January 2025 seeking financial transparency regarding a university event. The RTI requested expenditure records, speakers' details, vouchers, reimbursements, and financial approvals. These records relate to the use of public funds and are squarely within the disclosure mandate of the RTI Act.
2. Chronology • 17.01.2025 - RTI filed • 21.02.2025 - CPIO reply issued • 28.02.2025 - Reply received by post • First appeal filed due to incomplete disclosure The reply was not effectively delivered within the statutory timeframe under Section 7(1).
3. Query-wise Deficiencies Query 1-2: Speakers and participation details were denied as not available without explanation of record custody.
Query 3-5: Bills, vouchers, and utilisation records were denied despite existence of financial sanction documents, creating a documentary contradiction. Query 6-7: Payment and reimbursement documentation was not provided, amounting to partial disclosure of financial records. Query 8 onward: Administrative approvals were selectively disclosed while substantive expenditure records were withheld.
4. Documentary Contradiction The CPIO provided financial sanction orders but denied underlying expenditure documents such as bills and vouchers. Sanction orders necessarily imply supporting utilisation records, making the denial internally inconsistent and indicative of incomplete disclosure.
5. Legal Violations • Section 7(1): Delayed and incomplete response • Section 5(3): Failure to assist the applicant • Section 6(3): No transfer despite possible alternate custodians • Section 7(9): Failure to provide meaningful access to information These violations undermine transparency in public financial administration.
6. Public Interest The RTI concerns utilisation of public funds by a publicly funded university. Disclosure of financial records serves a compelling public interest and is central to the object of the RTI Act.
7. Relief Sought The appellant respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Commission may:
1. Direct complete disclosure of all financial and administrative records sought in the RTI dated 17.01.2025.
2. Order disclosure of bills, vouchers, utilisation records, and supporting documentation.
3. Initiate proceedings under Section 20 for delay and incomplete disclosure.Page 8 of 13
4. Pass any further directions necessary in the interest of transparency and accountability."
CIC/CUKER/C/2025/117672:
"1. Background This written submission is filed in support of my Second Appeal arising from my RTI application dated 13 January 2025. The RTI application sought certified copies of records relating to the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) promotion of Dr. Joseph KoyippallyJoseph to the post of Professor in the Central University of Kerala, including the promotion order, applicable UGC regulations, evaluation/score records signed by experts, file notes, and teaching experience records.
2. Chronology (as borne out by records in my possession) • 13.01.2025 - RTI application submitted (PRA/FFJ/2025/0001). • 13.02.2025 - CPIO reply letter issued/dated. • 19.02.2025 - CPIO reply received by me (as recorded in my First Appeal). • 20.02.2025 - First Appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act.
Even taking the date on the reply letter as 13.02.2025, the information supplied was incomplete and several key records were denied without legally sustainable reasons. I respectfully submit that for assessing compliance in practice, the date of actual receipt by the applicant is the relevant factual benchmark.
3. Query-wise deficiencies in the CPIO reply My RTI application contained 11 items. The CPIO's reply indicates the following dispositions, which I challenge on facts and law:
xxxx 3.1 False/Incomplete claim of enclosure (Item 8) The CPIO has stated that copies of the articles evaluated as part of the promotion process (Item 8) are 'attached'. However, these copies were not supplied to me along with the reply I received. A claim of enclosure without actual supply amounts to incomplete disclosure.
3.2 Improper use of Section 8(1)(j) for CAS evaluation and institutional records (Items 3, 6, 9, 11). Items 3, 6, 9 and 11 were denied citing Section 8(1)(j) (personal information). I respectfully submit that CAS promotion to Professor in a Central University is a public function involving public funds and institutional decision-making. Records such as theexperts' signed evaluation/scoresheet, the CAS application (as submitted to a public authority for promotion), official file notes, and teaching experience certificates are integral to the decision-making Page 9 of 13 process and attract a strong transparency interest. In any event, if any limited portions are considered sensitive, the correct course is severance under Section 10 and disclosure of the remainder, not blanket denial.
3.3 'Questions not specific' is not a lawful ground of refusal (Items 4 & 5) For Items 4 and 5, the CPIO responded 'Questions not specific'. If clarification was required, the public authority is expected to reasonably assist the applicant.
Moreover, Items 4 and 5 clearly seek: (i) whether any enquiry exists, and if so, its status; and (ii) certified copies of the enquiry report and related file notes, if any.
3.4 Non-responsive/ambiguous reply (Item 10)For Item 10, the reply simply states 'Contract'. This does not constitute disclosure of the record sought. The RTI query sought details regarding the nature of teaching experience during 2009-2011; the response should provide the relevant record/notation/certified copy that establishes the nature of the experience.
4. Reliefs sought from the Hon'ble Commission In the above facts and circumstances, I respectfully pray that the Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to:
a) Direct the CPIO to provide complete, clear and certified copies for all RTI items, including Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11, within a fixed timeline.
b) Specifically direct disclosure of: (i) experts' signed CAS scoresheet (Item 3); (ii) certified copy of the CAS application (Item 6); (iii) file notes relating to CAS promotion (Item 9); and (iv) teaching experience certificates (Item 11), with severance under Section 10 if strictly required.
c) Direct the public authority to supply the publications/articles stated to be 'attached' for Item 8, or to file a clear statement explaining why they were not supplied despite the claim of enclosure.
d) Direct a reasoned speaking order for any continuing denial, citing the precise exemption clause and justification, and addressing the public interest in disclosure.
e) Where any record is stated to be unavailable, direct the public authority to file a responsible statement/affidavit explaining the record-search undertaken and the custodian section, and to take steps to trace/restore mandatory records.
f) Consider initiation of proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act, if deemed appropriate, in view of the incomplete disclosure and the claim of enclosure without supply.
g) Consider compensation under Section 19(8)(b), if deemed appropriate, for the detriment and harassment caused by non-supply/incomplete supply of information."
12. Complainant stated that instant Complaints have been drafted and filed by his Advocate. Complainant prayed the Commission that his averred written Page 10 of 13 submission may be considered and this Complaints may be treated as Second Appeals as per Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 and directions may be issued to the CPIO to provide relevant information. To this end, the Bench pointed out the Complainant that there is no express provisions under the RTI Act, 2005 to controvert the Complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 into Second Appeal. Further, the powers of the Central Information Commission varies in adjudication of Complaint and Second Appeal as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
13. Per contra, the CPIO stated that point- wise reply along with relevant permissible information has already been provided to the Complainant in response to each RTI application in question except the personal information of third-party as sought by the Complainant, which was denied to him under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision
14. Heard the parties.
15. Looking into the facts of the matter on record and considering the submissions of the parties, the Commission noted at the outset that these arethe Complaints filed under Section 18(2) the RTI Act, 2005 where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another v. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011: AIR 2012 SC 864 wherein it was held:
"35.... Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the Information which he has sought for con only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19.
This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Page 11 of 13 Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. it is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor ((1876) 1 Ch. D. 426) that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden..."
16. The role of Central Information Commission is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon scrutiny of records, it is noted that timely replies was furnished by the CPIO vide letters dated 15.02.2025, 21.02.2025 and 13.02.2025 along with copy of relevant permissible documents in response to RTI applications in question are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Having a glance to the contents of enclosures annexed with the replies, the Commission arrives at a conclusion that there is no mala fide denial of information by the CPIO or otherwise in the instant case which calls for any action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, Bench relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Centro Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009wherein it was held as under:
"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
xxx ....The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead an interference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it.
17. In the light of above, intervention of the Commission is not warranted directing for disclosure of information at this juncture in the matters.Page 12 of 13
The Complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधारानीरे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सू चनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011-26767500 Date Dr. PRASAD PANNIAN Page 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)