Central Information Commission
Ravi Raj vs University Grants Commission on 12 November, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UGCOM/A/2020/669472
Ravi Raj ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
University Grants Commission
RTI Cell, Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/11//2021
Date of Decision : 09/11/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/01/2020
CPIO replied on : 18/03/2020
First appeal filed on : 21/02/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 17/04/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/05/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 22.01.2020 seeking the following information:
"University Grants Commission (UGC) Sir, I got admission In MEG Course from IGNOU for the session 2013-20 of July cycle and did 2nd year registration for the academic year 2019-20 of July cycle and was going to complete first year after appearing in the examination of December 2019. In the meanwhile I have got admission in B.Ed ODL course for the session-2019-21 of July cycle through distance mode from other university. Now I want to drop the second year of MEG and complete B. Ed ODL Course. Since the registration of MEG Course is valid for 5 years so I want to complete the second year of MEG Course in the academic year 2021-22. In this regard, provide the information;
1. Whether it is possible to complete the second year of MEG Course in the academic year 2021-22 in order to validate both degree courses.
2.If not, whether it may be possible to pursue 2nd year of MEG Course alternately either through internal credit transfer or external credit transfer for the academic year-2021-22 of July cycle.
3. If yes, both degree courses would be valid or not.
4. If not, whether there is any other alternative way to validate both degree courses.
5.What it is meant by pursuing two degree courses simultaneously is not allowed.
6. Whether it is meant by either matching the session of both degree courses or matching the academic year of both degree courses is not allowed.
7. Whether it is meant by there must be gaping between the date of appearing at the examination of both degree courses either of 6 months or 1 year.
8. Whether it is meant by there must be gaping between the date of publishing the result of examination of both degree courses either of 6 months or 1 year.2
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.02.2020.
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 18.03.2020 stating as follows:-
"The gazette notification of UGC specified degrees along with guiding principles is available on the UGC website https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/1061840_specification-of-degrees-july- 2014.pdt. A copy of the pertinent UGC public notice clarifying, two degree courses simultaneously is annexed. Which is self explanatory."
In respect of his first appeal, FAA's order dated 21.04.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Vamsika, Education Officer & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and requested for the clarification as desired by him to be provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that available clarification has been already provided to the Appellant and at the behest of the Commission, she further explained the subject matter to the Appellant to facilitate his queries.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information that has been sought for in the RTI Application as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for interpretations and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO based on speculative queries.3
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds the instant appeal bereft of merit.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4