Central Information Commission
Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Ojha vs University Grants Commission on 22 September, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2022/141638
Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Ojha .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Under Secretary & Nodal CPIO-(RTI Section),
University Grants Commission (Ministry of Education),
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002.
प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.06.2022
CPIO replied on : 22.07.2022
First appeal filed on : 22.07.2022
First Appellate Authority order : 23.08.2022
Second Appeal received at CIC : 01.09.2022
Date of Hearing : 11.09.2023
Date of Decision : 18.09.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 7
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
Gazette of India Part III Section 4, Published by the Authority, Table No. of the University Grants Commission Notification, New Delhi, 18 July 2018. 3(a) 8 no. The criteria regarding selection of candidates for interview for the post of Assistant Professors of Universities are mentioned in Kandika. According to which there are rules related to the award There is a provision of 03 marks for International/ National level (Awards given by international organizations/ Government of India/ National level bodies recognized by the Government of India). According to this context, please inform that the Award of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Postdoctoral Fellowship in Humanities and Social Science (Including Languages) Only 03 prescribed for the above award should be ensured. If 03 marks are unattainable for this award, then what type of national award will come under the above rule. Please kindly provide clear instructions in this regard.
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 22.07.2022, as under:
Kindly refer to guidelines of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Postdoctoral Fellowship in Humanities and Social Science for selection procedure. The guidelines are available on UGC website www.ugc.ac.in.
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 22.07.2022.
• The FAA vide order dated 23.08.2022, upheld the reply furnished by the PIO.
• Written submission dated 'Nil' has been received from the CPIO as under:
An online RTI No. UGCOM/R/E/22/04613 from Dr. Bhupendra Ojha was received on 13.07.2022 by the then CPIO, Mrs. Megha Kaushik and was disposed off by her on 22.07.2022. Against the reply, Dr. Bhupendra Ojha filed First Appeal No.UGCOM/A/E/22/01126 which was disposed off by F.A.A on 23.08.2022. In his application Dr. Bhupendra Ojha had referred to UGC Notification dated 18.07.2018 and sought to know whether the award of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Post Doctoral Fellowship in Humanities and Social Science is considered National award for grant of 03 marks by the selection committee constituted by the Institution where he had apparently requested for appointment for the post of Assistant Prof. As per the Page 2 of 7 provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is not required to interpret or provide clarification; the petitioner was requested to refer to the guidelines of the scheme available on ugc website i.e. www.ugc.ac.in.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present Respondent: 1. Ms. Poonam Arora, CPIO, UGC
2. Ms. Beena Menon, US, UGC The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that he had sought information relating to what type of national award will be considered for grant of 03 marks by the selection committee for selection of candidates for the interview for the post of Assistant Professors of Universities. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish the information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the guidelines of the scheme are already available on ugc website. They further stated that the Appellant has sought clarification inferences from the which does not fall under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that under the RTI Act the CPIO can only provide information which is available in the record. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which states:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, ad vices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any Page 3 of 7 private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 (CBSE &Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.) had held that:
"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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions..."
Thus, a combined reading of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 with the above decision clearly indicates that 'information' as defined in the section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority.
Commission deems it expedient to highlight that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011] has held as under:
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."Page 4 of 7
Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 09.08.2011 in the matter of CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) has held as under:
"35......... But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant..............."
"37. ...The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption...."
Furthermore, the Apex Court also held in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 that "Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and Page 5 of 7 furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
In view of the above, the Commission notes that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 7 Page 7 of 7