CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002555/5690Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002555
SHOWCAUSE HEARING:
Appellant : Dr. Ravindra Pratap
148, Surya Kiran Apartments,
65 IP Extensions,
Delhi-110092
Respondent : Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary
University Grant Commission
Bhadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110002
RTI application filed on : 08/04/2009
PIO replied : 13/04/2009
First Appeal filed on : 22/04/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Appeal Received on : 08/10/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 20/10/2009
Hearing Held on : 25/11/2009
Information sought:
1. Information of compliance with UGC norms by the GGSIP University which has by it order
dated 24/10/2001, appointed “Dr.(Ms) Deephikha Aggarwal” to teach Sociology in violation of
the UGC Guidelines for appointment of university teachers because the said Deepshikha
Aggarwal” does not have a postgraduate degree in Sociology and has been “teaching” and
“evaluating ” Sociology.
2. Information of compliance with UGC norms by the GGSIP University which has by its Order
date 21/08/2002, appointed “Dr. (Mrs.) Queeny Pradhan” as ” Lecturer in Law” in violation of
the UGC Guidelines for appointment of University teachers because the said “Dr. (Mrs.)
Queeny Pradhan” does not have a postgraduate degree in Law.
3. Information of UGC action against violation of UGC norms by the GGSIP University which
has been persistently allowing the aforesaid “Dr. (Ms.) Deepshikha Aggarwal”, who does not
have even an LLB degree, to teach and evaluate Criminology.
4. Information of UGC action against violation of UGC norms by the GGSIP University which
has been persistently allowing the aforesaid “Dr. (Mrs.) Queeny Pradhan”, who does not have
even an LLB degree, to teach and evaluate Advocacy Skills.
5. Information of UGC action against gross violation of UGC norms by the GGSIP University
which ahs been persistently allowing the aforesaid ” Dr. (Ms.) Deepshikha Aggarwal”, who do
not have even LLB degrees, to supervise legal research.
6. Information of UGC action against gross violation of UGC norms by the GGSIP University
which had allowed the aforesaid ” Dr. (Mrs.) Queeny Pradhan”, who does not have even an
LLB degree, to teach Human Rights Education to LLM students.
Page no. 1 of 4
7. Information of UGC action against gross violation of UGC norms by the GGSIP University
which had allowed the aforesaid ” Deepshikha Aggarwal”, who does not have a postgraduate
degree in Economics, to teach and evaluate Economics.
8. Information of compliance with UGC norms by the GGSIP University which ahs been
persistently not teaching its LLM students Law and Social Transformation in India, which is a
UGC-BCDI Foundation LLM Course 01
9. Information of compliance with UGC norms by the GGSIP University which has been
persistently “teaching” its LLM Students Judicial Process, which is a UGC-BCI Foundation
LLM Course 03
10. Information of compliance with UGC norms by the GGSIP University which has been
persistently “teaching its LLM students “comparative Jurisprudence” as a foundation course
which is not even a UGC-BCI optional LLM course.
11. Information of compliance with UGC norms by the GGSIP University which has been
persistently not requiring its LLM students to go for internal assessment (required also y
GGSIP University Ordinance 11).
PIO’s Reply:
Asking some questions to the Appellant, PIO replied on15 points whereas information sought on 11
points.
1. No violations of the UGC guidelines have been made by the appointment of Dr.
Deepshikha Agaarwal, an M. Sc/ (Anthropology) as a lecturer in Social Sciences. A
Lecturer is eligible to teach sociology if he/she has Master’s degree in Sociology/Social
Anthropology. Dr. Deepshikha Agarwal has a first class M.Sc. in Anthropology with 60%
marks as well as Ph.D.
2. The appointment of Dr. Queeny Pradhan Singh in Social Sciences does not violate any
UGC Guidelines. Dr. Queeny Prahan Singh is M. A in History A-Grade (7.07) having IInd
position form JNU, topper in M. Phil. A-Grade (7.84) and also hold a Ph.D.
3. The course content of Criminology clearly indicates that a teacher who has M.Sc. Social
Anthropology is competent to teach Criminology.
4. The course content of the paper ” Advocacy Skills” clearly indicate that rather than the
Legal Concepts it is primarily aim at behavioral skills which is an important part of study
for law graduates as it gives a law graduate a better understanding of human behaviour.
Every jurist has stated that law deals with the society and need people oriented skills.
Furthermore, objective and approach of five year law course is to make the law course
inter-disciplinary emphasizing specifically a correlation between social sciences and law.
Law is subject which cannot be studied in isolation from other interdisciplinary subjects.
5. As explained in Column 4, Social Sciences and law cannot be segregated, so nothing is
wrong if teachers of social sciences supervise research in collaboration with other law
teachers.
6. It is to mention that Dr. Queeny Prahan was on leave form 09/08/2006 to 31/10/2006 so she
did not conduct the classes o said subject. But it can definitely be said that Human Rights is
also an interdisciplinary subject.
7. For teaching Economics in the USLLS, Dr. Deepshikaha Agarwal has been associated as
the Lecture Coordinator and to cover elementary portion of the course initially at the start
of the law school. Mainly the faculty engaged to cover the specialized parts was Prof. S. K
Singh, Dr. S. K. Tanan and Dr. Anuradha Jha. For the last two years Dr. Anuradha Jha has
been absorbed as a faculty member on permanent basis in the USLLS. She is M. A in
Economics (69%) and also holds a Ph.D. Degree in Economics.
8. The course of LL.M has been shaped with due consideration given to the UGC guidelines
and requirements of students in changing world. For framing the courses, an expert
Committee including the Deans of the faculties of law from Delhi University, Aligarh
Muslim University, and Kurukshetra University was consulted. In LL.M. first Semester the
Page no. 2 of 4
paper of the Comparative Jurisprudence is being taught which very much covers the content
and objectives of law and social transformation in India. And the course has been shaped
keeping in view the current trends of globalization and impact of Economics and
Technology on Law.
9. The paper of Constitutionalism in the LL.M. first Semester, gives due coverage to judicial
process in process in India as it requires teaching of the judicial system also. One unit of
Comparative Jurisprudence also covers he area of dispute settlement.
10. In LL. B and LL.M. we give more coverage to emerging areas of study than prescribed by
the Bar Council of India. It appears that he Appellant is quiet ignorant about the contents
and objectives of Comparative Jurisprudence as he tries to equate Comparative
Jurisprudence at LL. M. level with Jurisprudence at LL. N. level. Comparative Law, as an
optional subject offered in LL. B. can also not be equated with the comparative
jurisprudence at LL. M. level.
11. Instead of 03 lectures per week in each subject, we have been offering 04 lectures per week.
Besides that teachers are taking tutorial classes and give additional support to
disadvantaged students.
12. The University is holding tutorial classed for all subjects in very semester and is having
compulsory moot presentations in all the semesters from every student. Only in 10th
semester there is compulsory Internship with lawyers/law firms/judges/other legal
institutions of two months besides a dissertation.
13. Necessary materials are being made available to students for all courses.
14. The University has prescribed a higher limit of attendance which is 75% in aggregate rather
than 66% prescribed y the Bar Council of India.
15. The schemes of syllabus and examination approved by the relevant University bodies are
being followed in LL.M and LL.B. the Appellant is making a misrepresentation of facts.
Grounds for First Appeal:
False information and libelous statements been provided by the PIO to the Appellant.
Appellant mentioned point wise reason with sub points on each 11 points. Some points were:
Which part of the PIO’s reply dated 13/04/2009 was RTI information on serial no. 1 of the Appellant’s
RTI application? How was the RTI information which, according to the PIO, is RTI information on the
serial no.1. Is information of compliance with the UGC norms as sought by the Appellant? What was
the legal basis of conformity with UGC norms of the RTI information which, according to the PIO, is
on the serial no. 1 and was information of compliance with the UGC norms as sought by the Appellant.
Copy of the legal basis of conformity with UGC norms of the RTI information which, according to the
PIO, was on the serial no. 1 and was information of compliance with the UGC norms as sought by the
Appellant. Which part of the PIO’s reply dated 13/04/2009 was RTI information on serial no. 2 of the
appellant’s application?
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Reason recorded in the first Appeal was not disposed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts that emerged during the Hearing on 25 November 2009:
“The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Ravindra Pratap;
Respondent: Dr. Archana Thakur, Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary;
The PIO had irresponsibly refused to answer a simple query seeking information about UGC
action taken against GGSIP University for various alleged violations in queries 3,4,5,6 & 7.The PIO
claims that they are seeking information from GGSIP about whether UGC has taken action or not
Page no. 3 of 4
taken. This is completely unacceptable and the PIO of UGC must give an answer to these queries. As
regards queries 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 & 11 UGC states that they keep no records of whether there is compliance
of their norms by the colleges or not. In view of this they have transferred these queries to GGSIP
University on 12/05/2009. The Appellant has not received any information from the PIO of GGSIP
University. The PIO of GGSIP University is directed to provide the information on queries 1, 2, 8, 9,
10 & 11 to the appellant if there are any records of this.
The PIO states that the responsibility of not providing the information so far is of the then PIO Mr.
V.S.Karsija, Dy. Secretary, UGC.”
Commission’s Decision of 25 November 2009:
“The appeal is allowed.
The PIO of UGC is directed to provide the information on queries 3,4,5,6 & 7 to the Appellant
before 10 December 2009.
The PIO of GGSIP University is directed to provide the information on queries 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 & 11 to
the appellant before 15 December 2009.”
Facts leading to Showcause:
The issue before the Commission was of not supplying the complete, required information by the then
PIO Mr. V.S.Karsija, Dy. Secretary, UGC within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it was apparent that the then PIO Mr. V.S.Karsija was guilty of
not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying
within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. Hence a showcause notice was issued to him,
and he was directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be
levied on him on 12 January, 2010 at 10.30am.
Relevant Facts emerging during Showcause Hearing on 12 January 2010:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. V.S.Karsija, Dy. Secretary, UGC & the then PIO
The then PIO Mr. V.S.Karsija states that they misunderstood the queries of the Appellant and
felt that GGSIP University could have all the information. He admits that since no action has been
taken in response to queries 3,4,5,6 & 7 they should have informed the Appellant that no action has
been taken. It is curious that the respondent states that UGC only asks Universities to reply to
complaints of gross irregularities and appears to have no time frame within which it ensures whether
irregularities are occurring in the Universities or not. The Commission cannot interfere in this method
of working; – rather not working or functioning to discharge its regulatory duties. However, it is
certainly incumbent on UGC to inform citizens that it is not taking any actions at all. The Commission
warns the PIO to ensure that the appellant is informed when UGC takes not action so that citizens can
atleast know the truth. The Commission accepts the explanation of the PIO that he did not understand
the queries properly and warns to be careful in future about giving the information to RTI Applicants.
The Commission directs the PIO to give the correct information to the Appellant before 28 January
2010. The Commission also directs the UGC to obtain the information from GGSIP University and
send to the appellant before 30 January 2010. The Commission decides not to impose penalty since it
appears the PIO genuinely misunderstood the queries.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
12 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
Page no. 4 of 4