Central Information Commission
Mr. Chetan Anand vs University Of Delhi on 7 October, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002001/5068
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002001
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Chetan Anand
673, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar (Ground Floor)
New Delhi-110009.
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda
PIO University of Delhi Department of Political Science Delhi-110007.
RTI application filed on : 08/04/2009 PIO replied : 01/04/2009 First appeal filed on : 05/06/2009 First Appellate Authority order : No order Second Appeal filed on : 18/08/2009
Appellant has sought 15 queries in his RTI Application. He received a reply from the PIO. But he is not satisfied with the query no. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 16 which are given below:
Sr. Information sought PIO's reply 7 Was Mr. Parvesh offered admission in the PhD Yes, Mr. Parvesh was
programme in the department of Political Science offered admission. subsequently?
8. Did DRC of the department of Pol. Science meet No, DRC did not meet after afterwards? February 20, 2009.
9. Can any candidate be offered admission in the PhD All admissions offered have programme bypassing the normal procedure, clearly to be as per University rules. spelt-out in the university rule book?
10. Can the university offer admission to those candidates in Same as answer to query 9.
the PhD programme who were not found suitable by the DRC?
11. Can the university offer admission in the PhD Same as answer to query 9.
programme to any candidate because of extra- constitutional pressure?
12. Can the university offer admission to a candidate in the This matter does't comes PhD programme who was denied admission by the under the purview of the DRCs of the department of Pol. Science in its last two Department of Political meetings? Science. This may be obtained from the University authorities.
15. If that be so, can the university be asked to provide an This query does not come explanation for conveniently bypassing well-established under the purview of the rules and regulation in name of protecting the favoured Department. few in the authority?
16. If a candidate is denied admission in PhD programme Same as answer to query 15. for partisan reasons in the university departments, who is the appealing authority?
Grounds for First Appeal:
Appellant is not satisfied with the query no. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16. The First Appellate Authority order:
No order.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO and no action taken by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Jay Chanda, PIO ; Prof. Achin Vanaik, HOD The Appellant had in his appeal stated the following:
Appellant: Question no. 7 of the original application: Mr. Pravesh was offered admission only after the HOD, the VC and Dr. Ujjwal Singh were summoned by the Hon'ble Chairman of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. Will it then inappropriate to conclude that due to 'pressure' from this constitutional authority, the admission rules were conveniently by-passed to the address a folly committed by the department of Political Science at the behest of a group seeking to pursue 'partisan' interests. Please clarify.
Respondent: The department of Political Science has neither commited any folly nor misused it authority as alleged. The department abides by the university rules for admission in PhD programme and the Department also abides by the dictates of the university authorities in these matters.
Appellant: Question no.8 of the original application: The DRC is the only statutory committee that selects candidates for admission to the PhD programme. However, Mr. Pravesh was offered admission without getting approval of the DRC that had not held its meeting.
Respondent: Provided Mr. Pravesh met academic requirements and he could be offered admission as supernumerary category.
Appellant: Question no 9, 2 and 11: There is no response. If the DRC recommendation is mandatory for admission to the PhD programme, can the department ignore the DRC while offering admission to any candidate? Please clarify.
Respondent: This procedure was followed and Mr. Pravesh was admitted.
Appellant: Question 12: As per the university statute, the DRC is a statutory body to formally approve admission not the PhD programme in any department under the university. In case of Mr. praesh, the DRC never met and the admission was offered suggesting that the DRC was convenient by-passed to cover-up the folly of the department that indulged in practices that are certainly reflective of a clear bias against a scheduled case candidate because of his opposition to the whimsical functioning of the departmental Head and a selected group of faculty members. This is evident by the summoning of Dr. Ujjwal Dr. Singh by the National Commission of Scheduled Castes and also a police complaint by the candidate who was harassed because of his caste status.
Respondent: In the light of the above clarification all university rules have been scrupulously followed.
It is clear that the PIO has provided adequate information and Prof. Achin Vanaik has given fairly detailed clarification which though not necessary under RTI have been given in the true sprit of transparency.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
The information has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 07 October 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.) (AK)