Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.

Central Information Commission
Mr. J.P.Singh vs Ministry Of Hrd, Govt. Of India on 12 February, 2009
                        Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
                      Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
                          New Delhi -110 067.
                         Tel: + 91 11 26161796

                                           Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00231/1597
                                                  Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00231
Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. J.P.Singh,
Resident Editor,
Daily News Activist (DNA),
Tulsiani Plaza IInd Floor, 118A, M.G.Marg,
Civil Lines, Alahabad-211002.

Respondent 1                           :       Mr. Y.V.Ramakrishna Rao,
                                               Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India
                                               Indira Gandhi National Open University,
                                               Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068.

RTI application filed on               :       25/06/2008
PIO replied                            :       16/07/2008
First appeal filed on                  :       03/09/2008
First Appellate Authority order        :       05/09/2008
Second Appeal filed on                 :       14/10/2008

The appellant had asked in RTI application for DEC’s action, hidden agenda of
DEC/UGC then under the former sacked secretary of UGC, DEC remained silent to
the second fraud & complaints of innocent students of Distance Education, circular &
Press coverage, deemed status of AAIDU, guidelines for provisional recognition of
ODL institutions on DEC web-site.

Detail of required information:-

S. No. Information Sought. The PIO replied.

1. Please inform whether DEC’s action was In connection with financial irregularities
only to terrorise AAIDU & sparing them of any institution, it is submitted that
for committing 300 Cr. Distance Education enquiring into financial irregularities etc. in
Scam? a University, statutorily created by the
State, is not under the Jurisdiction of the
Distance Education Council. Only
promotion, coordination and maintenance
of standards and quality assurance of
programmes come under the purview of the

2. In the above context, what were the hidden Does not pertain to DEC.

agenda of DEC / UGC then under the
former sacked secretary of UGC?

3. Please inform me why DEC did not Please refer to response to query (1) it may
recommend UGC for a CBI enquiry against also be informed that the DEC has
Dr Rajendra Behari Lal VC, AAIDU, who accorded ex-post facto recognition to
cheated distance education students the AAIDU, in the interest of students that had
second time, collecting crores fraudulently already received qualifications till 2005
in the months of Jan. 2006 to March 2006, only.

despite press statement collecting crores
fraudulently in the Month of Jan. 2006 to
March 2006, despite press statement of Mr.
Arjun Singh Minister MHRD in DEC

4. Please refer to the Circular No. F.6.1 DEC has accorded ex-post-facto
(7)/2006 (CP-1) dated May 19, 2008 & recognition to AAIDU, in the interest of
Press coverage dated 29 May, 2008 & 4 students that had already received
June, 2008 respectively qualification, till 2005 only. The decision
Please inform how has DEC alone issued has been approved by the joint UGC-
such a vague letter to AAIDU dt. AICTE-DEC committee. For information
29/08/2007, when there has to be an on deemed to be status of AAIDU you may
approved from Joint Committee of UGC, approach UGC directly.

In the above context please inform me how
has DEC nullified all AAIDU failed.

Please inform me what is the motive of
DEC behind this shady deal? Why deemed
status of AAIDU still exists?

5. Revised guidelines for provisional DEC has accorded ex-post-facto
recognition of ODL Institutions on DEC recognition to AAIDU in the interest of
web-site enclosed for your reference. students that had already received
Please inform me how DEC spared/over qualifications, till 2005 only.
looked its circulars & UGC’s dt. Dec. 02,
23 Aug. illegal offshore campused & more In connection with financial irregularities
than 105 unapproved coursed on/off etc. you are hereby informed that the
campus? Please clear the above guidelines matter does not come under the jurisdiction
to me & since when do the provisional of the distance education council only
recognition commence? Please inform promotion coordination and maintenance
when will DEC in the interest of the of standards and quality assurance of
country and students recommended to programmes come under the purview of the
UGC for a CBI probe into 300 Crore DEC. As such, it is submitted that DEC is
Distance Education Scam? Please respond not empowered to intervene in such matters
within time under RTI rules s hundreds of of the university and you may adopt proper
off/on campus students of AAIDU lime of action or may take such steps as
approach our press. deemed fit in this case.

The First Appellate Authority ordered: –

“The reply was given to you was based on the information available with the DEC.
the Council is not empowered to initiate such action as desired by you. However, I would
like to reiterate that keeping in mind the interest of students as well as the authority given to
DEC, the necessary action has already been taken in providing the post facto approval to
AAIDU till 2005. The above University was also accorded provisional recognition for one
academic year 2007-08. The DEC also sent a team to visit the University and submit its
report on the functioning of the distance education directorate for consideration of its
request to continue recognition. The same will be place in the next Joint Committee
Meeting of UGC-AICTE-DEC for further directions.

As you are appealing to the undersigned as the Appellate Authority. I fail to
understand how to initiate action against Director, DEC who him self happens to be
Appellate Authority. However, you may take any further course of action as you may

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. Y.V. Ramakrishna Rao, PIO,

The information appears to have been given to the appellant. The appellant is raising an
important Public issue, but the Right to information can only ensure delivery of
information. The appellant has pointed out that he wants the rule or proviso by which post-
facto recognition was given. The respondent states that there is no such rule. The PIO must
give this information to the appellant in writing.


The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO will give the information stated above to the appellant before 25 February 2009.

This decision is announced in open chamber.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
February 12, 2009.

(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

64 queries in 0.097 seconds.