Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4112
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
Hemant Kumar Nagar – Appellant
Versus
University Grants Commission – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/645201
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Ms. Geeta Rani, Mr. Manjit
The Commission mandates complete information provision under the RTI Act, highlighting the necessity for transparency.
Headnote:This judgment concerns a Second Appeal regarding an RTI application filed by the Appellant seeking information on UGC regulations for guest faculty. The Commission found that the CPIO did not provide complete information and directed a revised response within 20 days. The appeal was disposed of on this basis. The final order was to provide a copy of the decision free of cost.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's rti seeks ugc regulations. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. commission's directive for complete information. (Para 2 , 7) |
| 3. hearing absences do not negate obligations. (Para 5 , 6) |
Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Please provide pointwise Information with highlighted in supporting documents regarding University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations for Guest faculty appointed in any Indian Universities.
1) Can a guest faculty be appointed as Head of department of a state government university as per UGC regulations? If yes, please provide information with highlighted in supporting document.
2) If a guest faculty is appointed as Head of department of a state government university due to any valid reason and the guest faculty performs all the departmental works as a full time Head, then what are the UCG regulations regarding experience of such guest faculty as Head of department of a state government university.
3) Will such Experience (guest faculty as Head of department of a state government university and performs all the departmental works as a full time Head) be countable during regular appointment of suitable teaching post of any university of India as per UGC regulations. If yes, Please provide information with highlighted in supporting document.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Please refer to UGC letter dated 28.01.2019 which is self-explanatory.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 09.10.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 10.10.2024.
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Geeta Rani, Under Secretary and Mr. Manjit UDC, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a relevant UGC letter dated 20.01.2019 w.r.t guest faculty has been provided vide their letter dated 03.10.2024. On being queried by Commission regarding point no. 3, the respondent submitted that information regarding counting of service experiences was not provided to the appellant.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that complete information has not been provided by the CPIO vide reply dated 03.10.2024. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to furnish point-wise revised reply to the appellant within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With this observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
