Central Information Commission
Mr. K. L. Rathod vs All India Council For Technical … on 3 September, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000590/4691
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000590
Complainant : Mr. K. L. Rathod
108, Sapna Flats, Adarsh School Road,
Patan, North Gujrat-384265
Respondent : Public Information Officer
AICTE
All India Council for Technical Education,
7th floor, Chandralok Building, Janpath,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 28/01/2009 & 04/03/2009 & 24/03/2009
First Appeal filed on : 02/03/2009
Complaint filed on : 30/05/2009
PIO replied : 02/07/2009 after Commission's notice
Information sought:
RTI Application dated 28/01/2009:
I. Can a professor whose appointment is as a professor in commerce become qualified
as HOD and professor in AICTE norms following university run MBA Department?
(a) Are his qualifications adequate for becoming professor and head of an AICTE
norms following university run MBA Department?
(b) Can this professor with PhD in commerce qualify to become a guide for Phd
aspirants for MBA/Management candidates?
II. Can a reader whose appointment is as a reader in Management in department of
commerce and management become automatically be qualified as reader in AICTE
norms following university run MBA Department?
(a) Were his qualifications adequate for becoming reader in 1977? Does he qualify
even in 2008 without possessing Phd?
III. The flimsy reason, officers in university usually gives is- AICTE Norms were not
prevalent for MBA in 1996, is it true? University should have amended the
nomenclature in 1997 itself, but it has not done so, why?
IV. Has university faulted in appointing these professor and reader? If it has, now what
actions can be taken by AICTE to undo all above wrong?
RTI Application dated 04/03/2009 & 24/03/2009 :
1. (a) & (b) Can university give such a misleading ad? Was it not a mistake on part of
university? Or was it to absorb a commerce professor for MBA deptt.?
2. The posts of professor and reader were meant for SC/ST candidates. What efforts were
made by the university to make these posts open? If none were made, was it not depriving
SC/ST candidates of these posts? If university had deprived them, what action can be
taken by AICTE for it?
3. Had the university ever started the commerce department? What can state education
deptt., AICTE and UGC do about this?
4. Provide the documentary evidence about Dr. B. A. Prajapati meeting the required
qualification?
5. (a) How could Dr. B. A. Prajapati be even qualifying as a MCom. Candidate?
(b) If university had absorbed Dr. Prajapati, was this not a Gross Minimmum
Qualification Violation by the University? What can AICTE do in regard?
6. Dr. Prajapati is serving at MBA since last 12 years, is university not at fault? What can
AICTE do about this?
7. How can university allow Dr. Prajapati to be a professor and Head of MBA deptt.? What
can AICTE do in this regard?
8. Can Dr. Prajapati become eligible to be a PhD guide for Management stream? Under
which rule of AICTE the stand of university was justified?
9. Was the absorbed reader Mr. Nishith Bhatt in 1996, a candidate from industry or a
candidate from the academics?
10. & 11. Did Mr. Nishith Bhatt qualify as per the norms of an AICTE requirements for the
MBA institute?
12. Was the professional work of Mr. Nishith ever got approved by the three member
committee duly approved by BOG/CE/Senate or Academic council as per AICTE norms? If
not done, then under which rule of AICTE, the stand of university is accepted?
13. Mr. Nishith is not a PhD till today, the university has not stopped his increment ever,
under which rule of AICTE the stand of university is accepted?
14. (a) Despite of not meeting the qualification norms, the absorbed professor and reader were
appointed, had university not erred in this appointment?
(b) What action can be taken by AICTE against these candidates as well as against university
officers?
15. What can AICTE do to force the university to implement nomenclature and faculty ratio?
16. What can AICTE do to stop this dual and hypocrite stance of the university?
17. By not implementing mandatory post nomenclature and faculty ratio as per AICTE norms
since1997:
(a) had not the university deprived the incumbent dept. faculties and others of career
opportunities?
(b) had not the university also deprived the incumbent dept. faculties of huge monetary
loss?
(c) Is this not a very serious violation of basic fundamental constitutional rights?
(d) What step can AICTE take to help the incumbent dept. faculties who were subjected to
these wrong?
Reply of PIO:
The PIO replied on 2nd July 2009 after notice:
1. The RTI Application dated 28/01/2009 of the Complainant was not received in the office of
PIO.
2. The RTI Application dated 04/03/2009 of the Complainant was received in the office of PIO
but it was unsigned and without proper form of application fee, which was returned to the
complainant with the request to send application fee in proper form.
3. The RTI Application dated 24/03/2009 received in RTI cell on 27/03/2009 and the same was
forwarded to the concerned bureau for supply of information. The Bureau had supplied the
information stating that the information sought by the Complainant was not pertaining to
advertisement, selection and appointment of the faculty in Management Department of North
Gujarat University, Gujarat, which is under the purview of UGC, New Delhi and North Gujarat
University and accordingly advised to transfer the application to these offices. The RTI
Application of the Complainant was transferred to UGC and North Gujarat university vide the
letter dated 23/04/2009.(copy enclosed).
4. The information was supplied to the Complainant on 23/04/2009, thus there was no delay in
supplying the information.
5. It had been observed from the RTI Application dated 23/03/2009 that the queries were not
seeking information as defined under 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 but was a complaint against the
North Gujarat University for the appointment of faculty members in their management dept. their
qualification, nomenclature of various posts and irregularities in their functioning. This did not
come under the purview of AICTE, but come under the purview of UGC, accordingly the
application was already transferred to UGC.
Grounds for First Appeal:
The PIO has not replied.
Grounds for Complaint:
The PIO has not replied.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. K. L. Rathod on Video Conference from NIC Guj-Patan Studio.
Respondent: Absent
Mr. Rathod stated that he believe that AICTE is expected to control the activities of all technical
institutes and hence should be regulating the work at North Gujarat University. AICTE has stated
earlier and again in their submission to the Commission dated 31 August 2009 that no
information on North Gujarat University is available with them. Since it is not under
Administrative control. Besides as they have pointed out that the queries of the Complainant are
not seeking information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Complaint is dismissed.
What is sought is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
03 September 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)RA