CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00382/1644
Appeal No. CIC/ SG/A/2008/00382
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Raj Kumar Siwach,
E - 7, University Campus,
CDLU, Sirsa (Haryana),
Harayana.
Respondent : Mr. Sharanjit Singh,
Joint Secretary & PIO,
Human Resources Development,
University Grant Commission,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi – 110002.
RTI application filed on : 28/08/2008 PIO's Reply : Sep, 2008 First Appeal filed on : 17/11/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 04/12/2008 Second Appeal filed on : 24/10/2008
The Appellant had filed an application related issue of regarding the eligibility of the candidate
having qualification in Political Science for being considered to be appointed as Reader in public
Administrative camp up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Details of information required with the PIO’s reply as under:
S.No. Information Sought PIO's Reply 1. Have minimum qualifications under Regulations, 2000 Yes.
required for the appointment of teachers in Universities the
binding and mandatory force to maintain coordination and
academic standard throughout the country?
2. If yes, then any University of India can be left with a plenty No. The University
of leeway and freedom to determine suitability of a candidate can appoint the
for the post of Reader in appropriate subject? candidate only as per
qualification
prescribed by the
UGC Regulation,
2000.
3. If any University can appoint an ineligible candidate for the No.
post of Reader as per the requirement, then what will be
relevant and sanctity of UGC regulations?
4. Have the subject experts of ‘Selection Committee’ sweeping No.
power and supreme authority to appoint a candidate against
the minimum norms and qualification prescribed by the UGC
Regulations, 2000.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
The FAA said that “The expression of appropriate subject was indicated to cover the post of
Reader and once the Expert Bodies had indicated that the appellant who held a Post graduation
degree in Political Science was eligible to be appointed to the post of Reader in Public
Administration and had been rightly appointed to such post, it is normally not for the courts to
question such opinion, unless it has specialized knowledge of the subject. In the above Judgment
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India allowed the Appeal and upheld the appointment of the
respondent as Reader in Public Administration.”
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Raj Kumar Siwach
Respondent: Mr. B.K. Singh PIO
The appellant had asked for queries which actually required the PIO to interpret rules, for which
the PIO has no authority. The PIO has given certain clarifications which the appellant alleges are
false information. Undoubtedly the PIO has erred in trying to give interpretations, where he is
expected to only give ‘information’ which is on the basis of available records. The PIO is
directed not to do so.
The First appellate authority has also given his interpretation which he again has no authority.
The First appellate authority’s order clarifying the matter is also not ‘information.’
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
13th February 2009
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)