Denial of specific part of regulation from which the clause "promotion to a higher grade cannot be made without having the corresponding position available in the higher grade and no promotion can be made effective from a retrospective date” upheld by CIC
19 Apr, 2024O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.09.2022 seeking information in respect of the Career Advancement Scheme for University and College teachers on the following points:
(i) The specific section/ part/ page of existing regulations/ circulars/ notices based on which UGC has replied to MoE vide letter F.9-14/2020(PS/Misc.).
(ii) The latest regulations/ circulars/ notices superseded the UGC regulations on minimum qualifications for appointing of teachers and other academic staff in university and college and measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education, 2018.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
“Point (i) & (ii) - Such clarification/interpretation cannot be given under RTI Act, 2005. However, UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018, which is self-explanatory and available on UGC Website/URL-
https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/4033931_UGCRegulation_min_Qualification_Jul2018.pdf”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.10.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 21.10.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 19.11.2022.
5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Kanta Dhaman, Under Secretary and Shri Manjit, UDC, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought the latest regulations/circulars/notices, which superseded the UGC regulations, 2018. He further argued that the respondent had not provided the current and existing regulations/ circulars/ notices from which the clause "promotion to a higher grade cannot be made without having the corresponding position available in the higher grade and no promotion can be made effective from a retrospective date” is quoted in the letter No. F.9-14/2020(Ps/Misc.) dated 03rd August, 2022.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided the relevant guidelines (referred to in circular dated 03.08.2022), vide letter dated 22.09.2022. Further, they confirmed that there were no other guidelines governing the subject-matter referred to in the RTI application.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the respondent had confirmed that there were no other guidelines apart from those made available to him.
Therefore, the appellant has to draw inference or interpretation on the basis of the guidelines provided to him. That being so, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Information Commissioner
Citation: Dr. Susheel Kalia v. University Grants Commission, CIC/UGCOM/A/2022/661635; Date of Decision: 15.03.2024