Central Information Commission
Saurabh Goyal vs All India Council For Technical ... on 6 September, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/AICTE/A/2016/292175/MP
Appellant : Shri Saurabh Goyal, Saharanpur
Public Authority : All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : August 30, 2017
Date of Decision : September 5, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Smt. Ruchika Kem, Assistant Director - at CIC
RTI application : 6.8.2015
CPIO's reply : 24.8.2015
First appeal : 21.9.2015
FAA's Order : 19.10.2015
Second appeal : 5.4.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Saurabh Goyal, the appellant, sought to know the category under which B.Tech (Electronics & Communication) degree in which Mathematics was taught as a core subject, would fall, namely, as an engineering graduate in Mathematics or a Mathematics graduate.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) informed the appellant that only the information as it existed and was available with the respondent authority could have been provided under the RTI Act, 2005 and the CPIO could not create information or furnish answers to hypothetical questions raised by the appellant as had been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a request to direct the CPIO to provide the desired information to the appellant or to give the name of the authority which held the requested information. The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission reiterating his request for providing the desired information.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had completed his B.Tech degree in Electronics and Communication and studied Mathematics as one of the subjects during his graduation program and sought to know from AICTE as to whether his degree would be that of an Engineering graduate or of a Mathematics graduate. He was not satisfied with the CPIO's response that no such information was available with them.
4. The respondent reiterated that AICTE had no such information regarding whether or not the appellant's B.Tech. degree was equivalent to Bachelor's degree in Mathematics nor the Council could pronounce it as equivalent and therefore, the CPIO had responded as per the records.
5. On hearing both the parties and perusing the available records, the Commission observes that the CPIO has appropriately responded to the appellant. The copy of B.Tech degree enclosed by the appellant with his RTI application is self- explanatory and no further information could have been provided to him in that regard by the CPIO. Under the RTI Act, 2005, a public authority is supposed to provide only the existing and available information to the applicant which is held by it or under its control and it cannot create information or furnish any clarification/explanation for the satisfaction of the appellant. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority All India Council for Technical Education, All India Council for Technical Education, Consultant (RIFD Bureau), Advisor (RIFD Bureau), 4th Floor, East Tower, NBCC Place, 4th Floor, East Tower, NBCC Place, Bhisham Pitamaha Marg, Pragati Bhisham Pitamaha Marg, Pragati Vihar, Lodhi Road, Vihar, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003 New Delhi - 110 003 Shri Saurabh Goyal, R/o 2/2378/C, Renuvela Narayanpuri, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh