Central Information Commission
Mr. Devendra Kumar Jain vs Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Mhrd on 18 December, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002724/6003
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002724
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Devendra Kumar Jain,
C/o Mr. Anil Kumar, Moh. Peeth Bazar,
Rampur Maniharan, Saharanpur - 247451.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, MHRD, Haridwar - 249404.
RTI application filed on : 27-01-2009 PIO replied : 28-02-2009 First appeal filed on : 30-03-2009 First Appellate Authority order : Not replied Second Appeal received on : 19-06-2009 Date of Notice of Hearing : 06-11-2009 Hearing Held on : 18-12-2009 Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought following information from PIO - Gurukula Kangri Vishw avidyalaya -Haridwar regarding The name of the person who initially recommended the admission of Mr. Prem Niwas Gupta in MCA in 1996-97 etc S. No. Information sought. The PIO reply.
1. The name of the person who initially As per the information available in the recommended the admission of Mr. Department of Computer Science, faculty of Prem Niwas Gupta in MCA in 1996- technology the name of Mr. Prem Niwas 97 in Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Gupta came in the merit list (of sponsored Haridwar whose candidates of MCA 1st yrs. year 1996-97) aggregate percentage of marks is less than prepared after conducting an interview by the fifty percent at graduation level. committee consisted of the following:-
(i). Dr. Vinod Kumar, The then Head, Department of Computer Science.
(ii). Dr. S.L. Singh, The then Dean, faculty of Science.
(iii). Dr. Dharampal, The then Vice Chancellor of the Vishwavidyalaya.
2. The action taken and the punishment Information sought is not related to the given by the Vishwavidyalaya department. Authorities to the person who initially by breaching the laid down rules of the Vishwavidyalaya for the admission in MCA had recommended the admission of Mr. Prem Nivas Gupta whose aggregate of percentage of marks in graduation was below the required percentage of marks as per the rules of the Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar. Kindly mention the dated
(s) and Kind (s) of punishment (s) given to that person
3. All the facilities / benefits sanctioned Information sought is not related to the to that person or any member (s) of department.
his family, after the admission of Mr. Prem Niwas Gupta in MCA in the Gurukula Kangri Vishwa vidyalaya who initially breached the laid down rules of the vishwavidyalaya by recommending the above stated admission.
Ground of the First Appeal:
Incorrect and incomplete information had been provided by the PIO.
Note:- After making the first Appeal, dissatisfied information had been provided by the PIO vide No. AC/WZ/2009/511 dt. 13-08-2009.
Order of the FAA:
No order had been passed by FAA.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incorrect and incomplete information had been provided by the PIO, after the first appeal a dissatisfied information had been provided by the PIO and no any order had been passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Absent;
The PIO has send his written submission in which he has stated that the FAA had passed an order on 27/04/2009 which has been attached. The order of the FAA merely repast the information provided by the PIO without giving any information. The Appellant has sought name of the person who recommended the admission of Mr. Prem Niwas Gupta in MCA in 1996-97 in Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar. The PIO has not given the name of the person who may have given the recommendation nor stated categorically that no recommendation was received. This leaves a possibility that the recommendation was received and the PIO is not disclosing it.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information on all the three queries to the Appellant before 10 January 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 13 January 2010 at 2.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
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 18 December 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (BK)