CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002324/5460
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002324
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. Santosh Nandal,
1323, Sector 3, HUDA,
Rohtak- 124001.
Respondent : Mr. B.K.Singh
Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary
University Grants Commission.
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi- 110002
RTI application filed on : 12/05/2009
PIO replied : 28/05/2009
First appeal filed on : 13/07/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 25/08/2009
Second Appeal received on : 15/09/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 12/10/2009
Hearing Held on : 11/11/2009
Information Sought:
a) The report submitted by Dr S Perumalsamy, as UGC observer refer to selection
committee meeting for the promotion of Reader to the post of Professor held on
25/09/2008 for the Subject “Economics” regarding Dr Kavita Chakravarty.
b) Copy of documents with file notings of the case involving UGC letter dated 23/10/2008
on examination observer’s report concerning Dr Kavita Chakravarty.
c) The procedure followed by UGC which refers to the principles of NO Work NO Pay and
the procedure when a person who had not applied on the date of eligibility by his/her
own volition, be allowed by UGC to get arrears of salary of that period, with reference to
the case of Dr Kavita Chakravarty.
Reply of PIO:
The information has been enclosed.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA concurred with the information given by PIO with regards to queries 1& 2. He further
highlighted the case of Dr Kavita Chakraborty wherein the case was approved in view of MD
University’s letter dated November, 2008 (copy enclosed) and as per recommendations of UGC
Expert Committee/Observers.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Dr. Santosh Nandal;
Respondent : Mr. B.K.Singh, Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary;
The Appellant’s queries have not been appropriately framed and the PIO has given the
information. The appellant wants certain clarifications and the PIO is directed to give the
following information to the Appellant:
1- The File notings given tot eh Appellant with respect to query-2 show that Dr Kavita
Chakravarty’s case was rejected by UGC. The appellant will be provided the copy of
the letter by which this rejection was reversed by UGC.
2- Dr Kavita Chakravarty had applied for Promotion for Professor’s post in 2008. She
has been given the benefit of promotion and arrears of salary from 2005. The PIO is
directed to give the Appellant photocopies of communications, rules, policies by
which the benefit was given retrospectively.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information mentioned to the Appellant before 25 November
2009.
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
11 November 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)