O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “As per UGC ordinance, it is mandatory to score minimum 55% marks to pass the course work exam, so can any private university have the right to decrease or increase the minimum percentage of marks to pass the course or not?

(ii) According to the above statement 1, if a private University has the right to decrease or increase the minimum passing marks criteria for Ph.D. course work exam then which guideline of U.G.C. gives such right to the University?

(iii) Can any private University make their own rules regarding Ph.D. course beyond U.G.C. guideline?

(iv) If any student has taken admission as per the ordinance made by the university, but after some time the university amends the ordinance made by it, will it apply to that student or not?

(v) Is there any compulsion on students to publish review or research papers during and after the completion of Ph.D. course who have taken admission for batch 2022 to 2028?”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.03.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“For query No.1 to 5: You may consult University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2022 https://www.ugc.ac.in/ugc_notices.aspx ?”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.04.2023. The FAA vide order dated 06.04.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Subsequently, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil reiterating the RTI queries.

5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Kanta Dhamija, US & CPIO attended the hearing in person.

6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.

7. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has not sought for any relief under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act as he has simply reiterated the RTI queries. In other words, no grounds of second appeal or prayer has been stated in the Second Appeal. Pertinently, the Appellant has not even sought for any information as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the instant RTI Application. For the said reasons and in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case, the Commission finds the instant appeal as not maintainable.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/- (Anandi Ramalingam) (आनदं ी राम(cid:10)लगं म)

Information Commissioner (सचू ना आय(cid:18)ु )

(cid:24)दनांक/Date: 13.08.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन(cid:15)ल एस एस िछकारा, ((cid:28)रटायड)(cid:15)

Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)

011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO University Grants Commission, CPIO (QMC Pay Scale), Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi -110002 2. The CPIO University Grants Commission, CPIO (CPP-II), Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi -110002 3. Lukman Ahmad Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:- Nil Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)