CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000181/2745adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/ SG/A/2009/000181
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. A.N. Prasad
A-311 Meera Bagh,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110087.
Respondent : Mr. Deepak Vats
Dy. Registrar & PIO
University of Delhi
New Delhi-110007
RTI application filed on : 20/10/2008
PIO replied : 18/11/2008
First Appeal filed on : 25/11/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 16/12/2008
Second Complaint filed on : 12/01/2009
Sl. No. Information sought PIO's reply
1. The certified copy of executive A copy of the Executive Council
council resolution no. 05 dated 1st Resolution No. 5 dated 1st May, 2003
May, 2003. had been provided to the appellant.
The applicant is required to deposit
Rs.10/- towards the cost of 5 pages
being provided to him.
2. The certified copy of the meeting A copy of the Minutes of the meeting
minutes and resolutions passed of the of the Academic Council held on 18th
Academic council at it’s meeting held July, 2003 had been provided to the
on the 18th of July 2003. appellant. The applicant is required to
deposit Rs.22/- towards the cost of 11
pages being provided to him.
3. The Name(s) and Designation(s) of the The information sought by the
officials of the University Moderation applicant is exempted from disclosure
Committee(s) (subject wise) and the under Section 8(1) (g) of the Act
process of selection of the members of because information sought by the
these Committee(s). applicant if disclosed would endanger
the physical safety of the members of
moderation committee(s).
4. The Names of Colleges/department The moderation of internal assessment
etc. and the Courses, Specific marks is done as per guidelines
papers/topics wherein the Internal contained in the Ordinances and EC
Assessment marks have been Resolution etc.
moderated in the examinations held in
the years 2006, 2007 & 2008 and the
decision making process adopted for
doing the same.
5. Certified copies of It has been informed by the
complaints/grievances received by the Examination Office that complaints
university since the date of have been disposed of as per the
implementation till date, with respect decision of Internal Assessment
to the Internal Assessment scheme, Monitoring Committee (IAMC).
and details of the further action taken
on them.
6. Details of any committee(s) A Committee was constituted by the
constituted for reviewing the internal Vice Chancellor to look after the
assessment scheme. grievances of Colleges regarding
internal assessment in the year 2007-
08. The Committee had representation
of various Faculties, Colleges and
Academic Council/Executive Council
Members
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
The First Appellate Authority ordered that “The information sought by the appellant was provided
but the appellant is not satisfied in respect of information provided against point nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. After
considering the appeal, it is directed that-
Point no. 3 The contention of the appellant cannot be accepted and information sought by the appellant
is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (g) of the Act.
Point no. 4 Copy of EC Resolution, if any, on the subject of internal assessment may be provided to the
appellant.
Point no. 5 The information sought by the appellant is vague as no separate list is maintained of all the
complaints/representations received by the University regarding internal assessment.
Point no. 6 The details regarding the committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor to look into the
grievances of colleges regarding internal assessment in the year 2007-08 may be provided to the appellant
by 15th January 2009″.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 15 April 2009:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. A.N. Prasad
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda PIO
The following had not been provided to the appellant:
1. Certified copies of complaints received by the University since date of implementation.
2. The process of selection of members of the University moderation Committees.
3. The Names of Colleges/department etc. and the Courses, Specific papers/topics wherein the
Internal Assessment marks have been moderated in the examinations held in the years 2006, 2007
& 2008 and the decision making process adopted for doing the same.
4. Details of any committee(s) constituted for reviewing the internal assessment scheme
The appeal was allowed.
The PIO was directed to give the information described above to the appellant before 15
May 2009.
The Commission received a letter from the appellant dated 26/06/2009 that the information had not been
provided to him. On 16 July 2009 the Commission held a showcause hearing when Mr.
M.M.Raheman and Mr. Manish Srivastava appeared on behalf of the deemed PIO Prof.
Pokhriyal. They stated that partial information had been provided to the appellant on 19 June 2009. They
sought a time of one month more to provide the information. The Commission rebuked the respondents
for their nonchalant approach. The next showcause hearing was scheduled for 19 August 2009.
Relevant Facts emerging during Showcause Hearing on 19 August 2009:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. A.N. Prasad
Respondent : Dr. H.C.Pokhriyal, Dean Exams; Mr. Jay Chanda, PIO & Mr. R.P.Singh,
Dy. Registrar Results
Most of the information has been provided to the Appellant and the discussions revealed that there was
some lack of understandings on the part of the respondent about the nature of information to be given.
This was also coupled with poor record keeping at the public authority. Some parts of the information are
still to be provided and if the appellant receives the information satisfactorily he will give a letter to this
effect before 5 September 2009 after which the Commission will take a final decision.
Directions on 17 September 2009:
The appellant has given a letter dated 7 September acknowledging that satisfactory information has been
provided to him by the deemed PIO and that he is completely satisfied.
However this proceeding has highlighted the need for certain proactive disclosures by the Public
authority. The Commission directs the PIO Mr. Jay Chanda to ensure that the details of the Internal
Assessment scheme be put up on the Universities’ website in fulfillment of its Section 4 complaince. This
should be done before 30 October 2009 and a compliance report sent to the Commission before 5
November 2009.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
17 September 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)