Raj Kumar v. Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University

क य सचुना आयोग

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

बाबा गंगनाथ माग

Baba Gangnath Marg

मुनरका, नई द ल - 110067 Munirka, New Delhi-110067 File no.: CIC/HNBGU/A/2019/120724 + 147043 In the matter of:

Raj Kumar

...Appellant

VS

Central Public Information Officer Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University Srinagar (Uttarakhand) - 246 174 ...Respondent

The following were present:

Appellant: Present over phone

Respondent: 1. Shri H M Azad-, DR (Affiliation) and CPIO 2. Prof S S Rawat, Dean School of Education 3. S. P Vashisht, Private Secretary, Registrar Office 4. Dr Meenakshi Saini, Principal, Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan Degree College

Information Sought in File No. CIC/HNBGU/A/2019/120724:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. No. of candidates selected by the selection committee in the interview held on 24/02/2016 for B.Ed. faculty in Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan Degree College, Ruhalki Kishanpur, Haridwar, Uttarakhand.

1

2. Details of the candidates to whom the appointment orders were issued by the college/university and provide the dates on which the said candidates joined their duties.

3. Details of the faculty who served as B.Ed. faculty from 2016 to 26/12/2018. Also provide the details of the faculty who left the university or was removed from the service by the university during the said period.

4. List containing details of the panels for approval for renewal of faculty during 2016 to 26/12/2018.

5. And other related information.

Information Sought in File No. CIC/HNBGU/A/2019/147043:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Copy of the appointment letter given to all the faculties (selected in the interview held on 24/02/2016) who were given approval by the Vice Chancellor of the university.

2. Copy of the appointment letters of the B.Ed. faculties who were appointed, details regarding their taking charge of the job and the copy of affidavit submitted by the faculty.

3. Copy of the statement containing details of the salary paid to the B.Ed. faculties of the university.

4. And other related information.

Grounds for filing Second Appeal

The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

In case no. 120724 the appellant being aggrieved with the reply filed a first appeal and mentioned that he was not given any information in respect of points no. 2 and 8 of the RTI application. Further, in respect of points no. 4 and 6 he is not satisfied.

The CPIO, Shri Azad vide letter dated 18.01.2019 replied as follows:

"Point 1- List of selected candidates given. Point 4- Approval was given vide University letter 5721 dated 31.05.2016. After that there was no approval given for faculty.

2

Point 5- Information relating to this point is available in UGC and NCTE website.

Point 6- In case of any candidate not joining or in case of resignation, the concerned college has to inform the University within one week. Point 7-Time to time the norm for faculty educated changes and hence for information visit NCTE website.

Point 8- The sought for information is not available and hence being transferred u/s 6(3) to the Director/Principal Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan Degree College, Ruhalki Kishanpur, Haridwar, Uttarakhand" The FAA took cognizance of the first appeal and directed the CPIO/Section Officer (Confidential) Examination Section to provide the relevant information within 7 days from date of receipt of the order.

Regarding points 4 and 6, the reply was found proper. In respect of point no. 2 & 8, Dr. Saini was asked about the reply but she was not prepared in respect of the facts of the case.

Shri H.M Azad, Deputy Registrar (Affliation) vide his written submissions dated 04.07.2020 (page 10) reiterated the reply dated 18.01.2019 and submitted that there is no information pending from their end. He submitted that in respect of points no. 2 and 8, the holder of information is the concerned college. On a query by the Commission, he submitted that the same is a private college. Dr. Anis-uz-Zaman Nodal Officer (RTI Cell) vide his written submissions dated 13.07.2020 stated that due to a typographical mistake the FAA order was also sent to the Section Officer (Confidential). However, the matter is not related to Confidential Exam Section. On behalf of the FAA he apologised for the typographical mistake. He further submitted that the University despatched the appeal orders to Shri Raj Kumar, Dean School of Education/Registrar/Joint Registrar Affliation and Principal of the concerned college with reference dated 30.03.2019. He also submitted that the RTI Cell of the University sent a letter to the Principal of the above mentioned college, Dean School of Education, Registrar and Joint Registrar, Affliation with reference dated 03.07.2020 towards further action in the case of Mr Raj Kumar for second appeal hearing. The concerned college replied vide letter dated 27.04.2019 in which it claimed that the same is not covered under the RTI Act as they are not getting any financial aid from the Government.

3

In case no. 147043 the appellant in his second appeal mentioned that he had sought information on 5 points but was not given any information till the date of filing of second appeal. He pressed for penalty on the CPIO and the FAA. The appellant submitted that 16 blank pages were sent. Moreover, the FAA had directed the college to provide information.

Dr Saini the Principal vide written submissions submitted that the College is a self financed institute and not covered under the RTI Act. She further submitted that the appellant was a spokesperson for B.Ed faculty and was charged with sexual harassment on the basis of an oral complaint by a student. He was counselled and advised to maintain the decorum of the college and his behaviour and was asked to continue with his post. She further submitted that from 30.01.2018 onwards the appellant was not attending his duty and the reason for his absence was not intimated by him or his family. She further submitted that from reliable sources it was informed to him that a case was registered u/a 323, 376, 506 under IPC.

The FAA vide order dated 28.08.2019 disposed of the first appeal and directed the CPIO to provide information within 7 days.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that in both the cases the College is claiming to be not covered u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act. However the FAA of the University directed the College to provide information. The FAA should be careful and this kind of reply leads to misguiding the appellant and develops a hope that he can get the information. The fact is when the college is not covered under the RTI Act, the Commission cannot pass any direction. The information as available with the University was already given and no further relief can be given.

Decision:

In view of the fact that the College is a private institution and not covered u/s 2

(h) of the RTI Act, the Commission finds no ground to further intervene in this matter. The University has already shared the information which they were in control of. Therefore, no further action lies.

The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)

Information Commissioner (सचूना आय!ुत)

4

Authenticated true copy (अभमाणत सया पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पजं ीयक) 011- 26182594 /

दनाकं / Date

5