Instructions that education institutions cannot keep original documents of students, Cost for NAAC inspection, number of NAAC team members, source of revenue of UGC etc. CIC: Appellant informed that he had received the information; No intervention needed

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Kindly provide a physical photocopy of the notice/circular of the rules notified by UGC that government or private Colleges and education institutions CANNOT keep original documents of Students such as marksheet, passing certificate, Migration certificate and other documents.

(ii). How many members of NAAC team visit a college during inspection and what do they check?

(iii). How much cost is borne out by UGC for NAAC inspection per college and per university and how much cost does college (government and private) have to PAY to UGC for NAAC inspection.

(iv) Are engineering, medical, paramedical, pharmacy, law colleges also accredited by NAAC?

(v) What is the source of UGC revenue?

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.04.2023 provided the requisite information.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.04.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 20.04.2023 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 Nil.

5. The appellant vide online Dak dated 11.12.2023 communicated the Registry of this Bench that he had received the requisite information and was not willing to pursue the second appeal any further.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the appellant vide online Dak dated 11.12.2023 communicated the Registry of this Bench that he had received the requisite information and was not willing to pursue the second appeal any further. That being so, the Commission finds no scope for further intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Abhishek Ranjan v. University Grants Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2023/622787; Date of Decision: 16.01.2024