Central Information Commission
Deepak Sahni vs All India Council For Technical ... on 30 January, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/AICTE/A/2018/165341/02758
File no.: CIC/AICTE/A/2018/165341
In the matter of:
Deepak Sahni
... Appellant
VS
1.Central Public Information Office
All India Council for Technical Education,
Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070
2. Central Public Information Office,
All India Council for Technical Education
LB- Block, Sector- III,
Govt. College of Engg & Leather Tech. Campus,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata- 700106
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 30/07/2018 CPIO replied on : 23/08/2018 First appeal filed on : 18/09/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 08/10/2018 Second Appeal dated : 30/10/2018 Date of Hearing : 29/01/2020 Date of Decision : 29/01/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present in person
Respondent: Smt. Ruchika Kem, Assistant Director and CPIO, present in person; Dr. Bhupendra Goswami, Regional Officer and PIO, present over VC 1 Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has mentioned that he is not satisfied with the reply on points no. 3(a) & 3(b) of the RTI application, which are stated below:
3(a) Whether CMJ University, Meghalaya does require prior approval from AICTE to start or impart the technical and management education.
(b) Whether CMJ University, Meghalaya can enroll the aspiring students in its Diploma in Polytechnic, Diploma in Engineering, Bachelors of Technology (B. Tech) and Masters of Technology (M. Tech) courses without the prior approval from AICTE Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the relevant information on points No. 3(a) and 3(b) of the RTI application.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the same was not categorical in respect of CMJ University, Meghalaya. He further submitted that the reply is not proper as there is some confusion relating to the status of the University being a state private university or a deemed university. Moreover, the reply of the respondent is not addressing the queries of the appellant.
The CPIO submitted that though the information sought by the appellant in points no. (a) and (b) is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, however, the FAA provided a reply as per their records.
The appellant strongly contested the reply of the FAA also and the recent reply of the CPIO dated 17.01.2020.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO denied the information being clarificatory in nature. However, the FAA provided additional information stating that as per Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Bharathidasan University & Anr. Vs. AICTE & Ors. In civil Appeal 2056 of 1999, Universities/state universities/central Universities do not require prior approval of AICTE to commence a new course or programmes in technical education. However, Universities have an obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid down by the AICTE. lt is also informed that as per the Supreme court order in CA No. 17869-17870/2017) Deemed Universities/Constituent College have been brought under the purview of AICTE.2
File no.: CIC/AICTE/A/2018/165341 It was also informed that he may obtain the desired information directly from government/ state university. lnformation on AlCTE approved lnstitute/polytechnics/Deemed to be University and courses along with sanctioned intake run by Institute, is already available in public domain and may be accessed at council's website at the following link "www.aicte- india.org/ select-statistics, select-Approved lnstitution, select-Year, select- state, Select-Programme, select-Level, select-course, select- lnstitute, Select- Course Details.
A revised reply dated 17.01.2020 was also perused which is as follows: Courses/Prog. under the Universities are not mandatory to take AICTE approval. However, Universities may take approval from AICTE and comply with the norms and standards as prescribed by AICTE. Names of institutions conducting AICTE approved prog./Courses already exists at Council website (https://facilities.aicteindia.org/dashboard/pages/angulardashboard.php#!/ap proved.
Decision:
In view of the above replies and in respect of the points raised by the appellant, and on close scrutiny of the RTI application, it was noted that the appellant had sought clarification from AICTE and no information as such as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act was sought. The reply provided vide letter dated 23.08.2018 is considered proper. However, it is appreciated that the FAA and the present CPIO through their replies tried to facilitate the appellant in getting available information in the website.
Accordingly, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3