Central Information Commission
P Siravanan vs University Grants Commission on 17 February, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/634841/2894
File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/634841
In the matter of:
P Siravanan
... Appellant
VS
1. Dy. Secretary & CPIO
University Grants Commission
South Eastern Regional Office,
APSFC Building, 4th Floor, 5-9-194,
Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad - 500 001
2. PIO/ Principal
Nallamuthu Gounder Mahalingam College
Pollachi - 642 001, Tamil Nadu
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 08/10/2018 CPIO replied on : 18/10/2018 First appeal filed on : 18/10/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 25/10/2018 Second Appeal dated : 04/11/2018 Date of Hearing : 17/02/2020 Date of Decision : 17/02/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Dr. Salim, Education officer ,UGC, Hyderabad, Shri Srinivasan, Representative from NGM College, both present over VC and Shri Lokesh Kumar, Representative of the CPIO, UGC, New Delhi, present in person 1 Information Sought:
The appellant has sought copies of the letters with regard to qualification approval for the post of lecturers in Govt. aided colleges given by Bharathiar University from 01/01/1994 to 31/12/1995.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information whereas the appellant stated that since the university is controlled by UGC and also gets financial assistance from them the information should be given by them.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The respondents stated that the RTI application was duly replied to by the CPIO indicating that the required information is not available with them and the appellant was asked to approach the university of the State Information Commission for the same. The respondent stated that they could not transfer the application to the State authorities being an online application. The respondent also referred to a letter written by them to Bharathiar University dated 07.02.2020 wherein the university was asked to provide the required information directly to the appellant explaining the circumstances why this could not be transferred.
Dr Salim, representative from NGM college stated that a reply had been provided to the appellant on 21.03.2019.
The appellant reiterated the contents of his second appeal and requested that information be provided.
Observations:
From the averments of both the parties it appears clear that the UGC does not have the required information and therefore addressed the Bharathiar University on 07.02.2020 to provide the information directly to the appellant. While the explanation given by the respondent of UGC regarding inability to transfer the online application is accepted, it is not understood as to why the letter sent to the university on 07.02.2020 could not have been sent earlier rather than doing so only after the receipt of the CIC's hearing notice. Further, the CPIO was not present to explain the case and has sent the Section officer without giving reasons as to why she could not attend the hearing.2
File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/634841 The CPIO is accordingly warned that in future, she must attend the hearings unless there are pressing circumstances for her absence, for which advance intimation must be given to the CIC.
With regard to the information sought for is concerned, it appears that the NGM college has provided the information but the appellant appears to have not received the same.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the representative from NGM College is directed to resend the letter dated 21.03.2019 to the appellant within 10 days of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3