Central Information Commission
Deepender Deswal vs University Grants Commission on 14 August, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2023/618767
Deepender Deswal ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
University Grants Commission, ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 03.12.2021 FA : 07.01.2023 SA : 24.03.2023
CPIO : 02.01.2023 FAO : 28.03.2023 Hearing : 25.07.2024
Date of Decision: 13.08.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.12.2021 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Please provide the copies of the circular and instructions issued by the IGNOU and distance education council (DEC) when it was in operation before 2013 to the Haryana Government and Panjab University Chandigarh and the Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak and the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra to inform and ascertain about the validity of courses offered by the EIILM University Sikkim through study centers established in Haryana, Punjab and Delhi in the session 2007-08 to 2013-14.Page 1 of 4
(ii) Can the Haryana government and the Panjab University Chandigarh and the Maharashi Dayanand University Rohtak adopt their own criteria to accept the degrees of EIILM University Sikkim through study centres as valid. What is the stand of the IGNOU and DEC on this?
(iii) Was there any mechanism set up by the IGNOU and DEC for the students to ensure the validity of the courses of the EIILM University Sikkim in 2007-08 to 2013-14 through study centres located in Haryana, Punjab and Delhi. Had the IGNOU and DEC issued any notices/circulars to the universities mentioned in the point 1 about the courses of the EILM University?
(iv) Had the IGNOU and DEC sent any circular to the Panjab University, Chandigarh, Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak, Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra, Guru Jambheshwar University Hisar and Chaudhary Devi Lal University Sirsa about the validity of the courses ran by the FILM University Sikkim in distance mode through the study centres located in Haryana, Punjab and Delhi from the session 2007 to 2013? If yes, please provide the copies of the circular and instructions.
(v) If the universities mentioned in the point 4 had accepted the degrees of MA in subjects of English, Geography, History, Political Science, Psychology, Mathematics, Mcom and Msc in various subjects of the EIILM University Sikkim passed by the students through its study centres and allowed the students to pursue further studies on the basis of these degrees, was the IGNOU and DEC authorized to take any action on these above-mentioned universities. Had the IGNOU and DEC taken any action on these universities in this regard?
(vi) Had the IGNOU and DEC allowed the Maharashi Dayanand University Rohtak, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology Hisar to set up study centres outside Haryana. Whether the degrees of the students who passed out Page 2 of 4 through study centre of the MD University Rohtak located in Delhi in the year 2009-10 and 2010-11 valid or invalid."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Kindly visit www.ugc.ac.in FAQs and notices at our DEB website https://deb.ugc.ac.in/ and approach to the concerned Higher Educational Institution (HEI)."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 28.03.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.03.2023.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Neera Chopra, US & CPIO attended the hearing in person.
6. The Respondent submitted that although the relevant information was provided to the Appellant at the original instance, additional clarification has been also sent to the Appellant vide their reply dated 24.07.2024 as endorsed to the Commission prior to the hearing.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that even as the Appellant has not sought for any information as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the CPIO vide their original reply provided a clarification in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. Further, the detailed point-wise reply provided by the CPIO at this stage adequately supplements their original reply warranting no further action in the matter.
8. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Page 3 of 4Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 13.08.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO University Grants Commission, CPIO (NRCB), Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi -110002
2. Deepender Deswal Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)