CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /OK/A/2008/00512/SG/0586
Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/00512/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Dr. Mohd. Naved Khan,
Sr. Lecturer & Member AMU Court,
Dept. of Business Administration,
Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202002.
Respondent 1 : Dr. S. Iqbal Ali,
PIO & Principal,
University Polytechnic,
Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh-202 002.
RTI filed on : 09/04/2007
PIO replied : 17/07/2007
First appeal filed on : 27/07/2007
First Appellate Authority order : 31/08/2007
Second Appeal filed on : 19/06/2008
S.No. Information Sought PIO Reply
1. The provision of the rules of the No provision is available in this office and the Dean
University whereby a teacher can keep the and other higher authorities may have such provision.
instrument in his possession in his
chamber.
2. The policy of the University in general It is world vide policy to sit in the Laboratory where
and Polytechnic in particular regarding the instrument is placed so that it could be protected
transferring of an expensive instrument and utilized.
like AAS from the department/section
laboratory to the Chamber of individual
teacher.
3. A certified copy of the permission letter of
No such rules exist to my knowledge. Principal is the
the Principal, Polytechnic to house the Academic and Administrative head of the University
said instrument in the personal chamber ofPolytechnic and no permission is sought from any one
the teacher and legal jurisdictions under to assign a Lab. to a particular teacher. Dr.Suhail
which the Principal can exercise this Ayub, Lecturer, Civil Egg. Section, University
discretion. Polytechnic is a expert in a use of a Atomic
Absorption spectrometer (AAS). No body else in the
University Polytechnic has knowledge to use this
sophisticated instrument.
4. The policy of the University in general This is not a personal chamber. It is part of Laboratory
and Polytechnic in particular regarding in which sophisticated instrument requiring Air
installation of an Air Conditioner (AC’s) Conditioner (AC’s) has been installed.
in the personal chamber of the teachers.
5. The reason why this instrument was not Instrument is installed in the Laboratory.
installed in the Laboratory of the
concerned section.
6. In case any damage etc occurs to such a Person in whose custody, he is responsible for the
costly instrument then the name and damage etc. Presently Dr. Suhail Ayub is operating
designation of the individual who will be and maintaining this instrument.
held responsible for the same.
7. In case any damage etc occurs to such a Action will be taken as per University rules.
costly instrument then the action which the
University will initiate against the
individual who is in possession of the said
instrument.
The First Appellate Authority Ordered:
“After perusal of his comment is of the view that information relating to your queries has already been
provided. However, a copy of the comments of Principal University Polytechnic is enclosed
herewith.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Dr. Mohd. Naved Khan,
Respondent: Dr. S. Iqbal Ali
The appellant pointed out that categorical information had not been provided in respect of the
first three points. The PIO is asked to provide categorical answers to the first three points,
without qualifying statements such as ‘in this office,’ or ‘to my knowledge’.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the information to the appellant before 5 January, 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
17th December, 2008
(For any further correspondence please mention the decision number given above, for
quick disposal.)