Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

V Sree Ganga Preethi vs Pondicherry University on 4 December, 2024

                                      के ीय सूचना आयोग
                                Central Information Commission
                                   बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                                 Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं          ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/PONDU/A/2023/635064

 V. Sree Ganga Preethi                                           ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                          VERSUS
                                           बनाम
 CPIO:
 Pondicherry University,                                     ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
 Kalapet, Puducherry

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 24.01.2023                  FA     : 14.03.2023           SA      : 18.07.2023

 CPIO : 16.02.2023                 FAO : 20.04.2023              Hearing : 25.11.2024


Date of Decision: 03.12.2024
                                            CORAM:
                                      Hon'ble Commissioner
                                    _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                           ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Ritu Tyagi was appointed as Assistant Professor under Pondicherry University on 03/04/2012 just by seeing her "US returned" tag.

(ii) Ritu Tyagi has joined on a Contract basis from June 2010 (Exact Date not given) in Germanic and Romance Studies, DU, Delhi, till leaving in 2012 (Exact Date not given). The reason for leaving is mentioned as it is a temporary position. Her promotion from Stage 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 itself is wrong as she was not eligible for such jumps. Her records must be thoroughly checked - Kindly clarify the same.

(iii) Till 2009, Ritu Tyagi was doing Ph.D. at Louisiana State University and her Ph.D.Thesis is written in the English language, and not in French. ( Please check 'original Thesis' as well as 'Louisiana University Website'. Doctorate must be done in French Language itself and not in another language as per UGC guidelines - kindly clarify.

(iv) MA-French was done at Irvine, USA, again in the English Language and not in French Language. Ritu Tyagi teaches the MA French students in Pondicherry University in English which is against the rules and guidelines provided by the UGC - kindly clarify.

(v) Ritu Tyagi has wrongly mentioned without any proof that she has an experience of 17 years teaching in UG. Whereas she has joined first time regular service only in 2012. That means she has only 8 years of teaching experience as of 2022.

Pure fabrication of experience is provided by her. For 2 years, she was also on long leave -- so, no teaching or academic participation. All her teaching hours indicated in her CAS promotion applications are highly inflated. The total of exam answer scripts valued is inflated. No proofs are given for any of her e- content, Lectures, evaluation, academic claims, or educational degrees. This is highly irregular. - Kindly clarify.

(vi) No Ph.D. Thesis by a single doctoral Candidate has been completed under Ritu Tyagi's guidance for the last 11 years - Kindly clarify.

(vii) Ritu Tyagi's post is that of an Assistant Professor in French. But she was selected with a Thesis in English, and with increments for her Ph.D. The Thesis has never been produced to any committee in this University, nor is available in the University Library - Kindly clarify.

(viii) Ritu Tyagi joined her first regular post only in April 2012, and her Contract employment is counted for service which is again irregular. She has to be Page 2 of 6 immediately reverted back to stage 1 and further action initiated for providing false information. Kindly clarify.

(ix) All the above matters need to be properly scrutinized by the University Authorities before calling Ritu Tyagi for the next stage, as she is not eligible for the Associate Professor cadre.

(x) How many candidates/Research Scholars have withdrawn/refused to continue under the guidance of Ritu Tyagi? It is understood that at least 4 Research Scholars have withdrawn from working under her. What is the reason? Is it due to the reason that she was not well versed in the subject and language and rude behaviour?

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.02.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

i, v, vi, ix: Statement ii-iv: The requested information pertains to third party information which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

vii-viii: She was selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The Executive Council has approved her selection to the post Assistant Professor.

x: Details available in RAMS portal of Pondicherry University Details are provided in the University official website under faculty profile.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.03.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 20.04.2023 stated that:

For Q. No. 1 to 9: It is informed that the information furnished by CPIO vide letter dated 16.02.2023 is found in order.

For Q. No. 10: It is directed to the CPIO to obtain available information from the Asst. Registrar, Convocation Section and send reply to the appellant directly, subject to provisions under RTI Act.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.07.2023.

5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Dr. M. R Keerthana, Law Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that most of the information sought pertained to Ms. Ritu Tyagi (third-party), disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act has been sought. She further submitted that the details sought on point no. 10 of the RTI application were already available on their official website.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 16.02.2023. The perusal of records further reveals that the appellant has sought for the personal information of third party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the CPIO correctly denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC Page 4 of 6 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:

"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."

8. The Commission notes that on point no. 10 of the RTI application, the appellant had sought reasons, which were not covered within the purview of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008). The following was thus held:

"The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."

9. Further, in the absence of the appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions and in the absence of the larger public interest, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 03.12.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Pondicherry University, Bharat Ratna Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Administrative Building, R.V. Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry - 605014.

2. V. Sree Ganga Preethi Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)