Cases on UGC-CARE list based on Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103783957/
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/UGCOM/A/2017/605510-BJ
Mr. Paraneeiswaran
....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
University Grants Commission
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi - 110001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.01.2019
Date of Decision : 15.01.2019
Date of RTI application 22.06.2017
CPIO's response 09.08.2017
Date of the First Appeal Nil
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding whether his research contribution (post doctoral) experience and papers published in referred (reputed impact factor) journals had been considered for weightage of marks for Assistant Professor Recruitment in Arts and Science Colleges conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board of Tamil Nadu (TRB).
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period, the Appellant approached the FAA. Subsequently, the CPIO vide its letter dated 09.08.2017 responded that as per appendix III table 4(c) of UGC Regulation 2010, the UGC has not prescribed any API score for the post of Assistant Professor. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Ms. C. P. Gaur, US;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. P. Gopi, FMS NIC studio at Erode confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent informed the Commission that the online RTI application was replied by the CPIO / FAA. The First Appeal filed on 24.07.2017 however was replied on 10.09.2018 and the delay was regretted. In its written response submitted to the Commission the reply of the CPIO / FAA was reiterated. It was also submitted that this was a personal grievance of the Appellant for according weightage to his experience for the post of Assistant Professor which was suitably answered.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........" In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides: "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The DoP&T in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
5..............................The Act provides that the first appellate authority would be an officer senior in rank to the CPIO. Thus, the appellate authority, as per provisions of the Act, would be an officer in a commanding position vis a vis' the CPIO. Nevertheless, if, in any case, the CPIO does not implement the order passed by the appellate authority and the appellate authority feels that intervention of higher authority is required to get his order implemented, he should bring the matter to the notice of the officer in the public authority competent to take against the CPIO. Such competent officer shall take necessary action so as to ensure implementation of the RTI Act. "
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. However, the FAA is cautioned to be alert and vigilant in handling RTI applications within the stipulated time period as per Section 19 (1) (6) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ kl.das@nic.in
दनांक / Date: 15.01.2019https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182959978/क य सच ु ना आयोग CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION बाबा गंगनाथ माग Baba Gangnath Marg मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067 Munirka, New Delhi-110067 File No.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/639673 In the matter of: Dr S Garg ... Appellant VS The Under Secretary & CPIO, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 ...RespondentRTI application filed on : 09/02/2019 CPIO replied on : 22/03/2019 First appeal filed on : 23/03/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 26/04/2019 Second Appeal dated : 02/05/2019 Date of Hearing : 09/09/2020 Date of Decision : 09/09/2020 The following were present: Appellant : Heard over phoneRespondent: Ms Kundala Mahajan, Under Secretary & CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Vide Public Notice bearing No. F.1-1/2018 (Journal-CARE), dated January 14, 2019, Prof. Rajnish Jain, Secretary, U.G.C., mentioned that protocol for Journal analysis consists of the following three sections: (a) Basic Information (Part-I); (ii) Primary Criteria (Part II); (iii) Secondary Criteria Part(III). Although the Part I of the protocol is made a part of the above noted Public Notice, but the Part II and III of the protocol has not been made a part of the above noted Public Notice. In view of the above, provide the duly certified copy of Part II and III of the above noted protocol.
2. Copies of Legal notices, if any, served upon the UGC/INFLIBNET Centre of UGC by any party as well as details of Court Cases, if an, filed by any party against the UGC/INFLIBNET in any of the Hon'ble Court of law regarding the UGC approved list of Journals.
3. Complete file containing the noting / proceedings along with every annexure, pertaining to the reply to be issued in response to the present application by the Official(s) concerned. The copies of those annexure may not be supplied, which will be the part of your reply to the present application of the applicant along with the Full Name and designation of every signatory of the noting/proceedings referred to in the above para of present application.
Grounds for Second appeal The CPIO has provided vague and incomplete information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that the CPIO has failed to provide the complete information to him as neither of the two links given by the CPIO in his reply contained the requisite information as was sought by him and there was a delay in giving a rely to him despite that fact that he had specifically mentioned that his case falls under the category of life and liberty. Hence, the concerned CPIO may be penalized and disciplinary action may be initiated against him and he may be adequately compensated for not providing the required information. He also stated that he was not given an opportunity of personal hearing despite requesting for the same.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 22.03.2019 Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO is not proper as a point-wise reply was not given to the appellant. Rather the appellant was directed to get the desired information from their website for which the hyper-links were given but as per the submissions of the appellant, the information sought by him was not available in their website. It is also noted that the FAA's order is also incomplete as for point no. 1, there was no justification given for claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. For the rest of the points also, there is no categorical reply either by the CPIO or the FAA. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply on all the points raised by the appellant in his RTI application and in case the CPIO is claiming any exemption, the same should be properly justified.
Among other submissions, the appellant in his second appeal has also raised an issue that the FAA did not provide him an opportunity of being heard even though he had requested for the same in his first appeal memo. Here it is brought to the notice of the FAA that deciding an appeal after rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is conducive to fairness and transparency and is in line with the principles of natural justice. As per Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, the FAA is required to dispose of an appeal within 30 days of the receipt thereof and as far as possible also give the appellant as well as third party an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of the RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Civil Appeal No.9095/2012 has made the following observation:
"Thus, the principle is clear and settled that right of hearing, even if not provided under a specific statute, the principles of natural justice shall so demand, unless by specific law, it is excluded. It is more so when exercise of authority is likely to vest the person with consequences of civil nature."Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide a revised reply to the appellant in a point-wise manner as per the provisions of the RTI Act. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
It is also brought to the notice of the FAA that although the Right to Information (RTI) Act or the rules made thereunder do not prescribe in detail the procedure to be followed by the Appellate Authority in dealing with first appeals, by convention, the Appellate Authority should give an opportunity of hearing to any Appellant if the Appellant expressly wants to be heard. Therefore, the Commission would like the Appellate Authority to bear this in mind and, whenever any such request is made, to afford an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. The present CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this order to the concerned FAA for his information.
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
Comments
Post a Comment