Shankar Prakash A vs University Grants Commission on 27 October, 2020
Central Information Commission
Shankar Prakash A vs University Grants Commission on 27 October, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gangnath Marg
, - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/635764
In the matter of:
Shankar Prakash A
... Appellant
VS
Under Secretary & CPIO
University Grants Commission
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002
...Respondent
RTI application filed on
CPIO replied on
First appeal filed on
First Appellate Authority order
Second Appeal dated
Date of Hearing
Date of Decision
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
23/11/2018
14/12/2018
15/12/2018
10/01/2019
11/03/2019
26/10/2020
26/10/2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone
Respondent: Dr.Ramesh Chander Verma, Under Secretary and CPIO, present over phone
Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has stated that satisfactory information has not been provided on
query 2,3,4 & 5 of his RTI application. He has sought the following information on the said points
with reference to UGC Junior Research Fellowship in Sciences, Humanities and Social Sciences
scheme (Contingency Grant):
2. Whether as per Annexure IV (Contingency Utilisation Certificate), items such as
desktop computer/laptop and printer may be purchased for research purpose.
3. Under the above-mentioned scheme, whether a research scholar can utilise his/her
contingency grant to purchase a desktop computer/laptop for research purpose.
4. Under the above-mentioned scheme, whether a research scholar can utilise his/her contingency
grant to purchase a printer for research purpose.
5. If they are allowed to purchase a desktop computer/laptop and printer for research purpose,
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/156939559/
1
Shankar Prakash A vs University Grants Commission on 27 October, 2020
whether they have to surrender those consumables to the university/college after the completion of
PhD research.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided unsatisfactory reply.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal mentioned that he is not satisfied with the reply given by the
CPIO and FAA in respect of points no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of his RTI application. He further submitted that
point no. 2 is specific that, whether electronics includes the desktop computer/laptop computer and
printer? But the reply given by the CPIO is not making any sense. Here the word electronics is
ambiguous without referring to any specific item. For query 3, 4 and 5, the CPIO mentioned that this
depends upon the concerned University. Therefore, with the above unsatisfactory reply, he made an
appeal to the FAA by referring XII plan guidelines for junior search fellowship in science,
humanities and social sciences that it is the duty of the UGC to lay down terms and conditions for
the utilisation of contingency grant, but to his surprise the FAA closed the appeal by stating "Reply
already given, you are requested to utilize the grant as per guidelines of the scheme for utilization of
grant, prescribed format is enclosed." He contended that he himself had sought information by
referring to Annexure IV and FAA again asked him to refer to Annexure IV by uploading the same.
Furthermore, in his second appeal he had sought two specific reliefs, viz. 1) UGC should come up
with a specific list of consumables and heads to be utilised for the contingency grant. A specific list
will avoid such ambiguity as arose in his case due to the word 'electronics.' 2. Now with this appeal,
he is seeking the necessary information. And, since, both the CPIO and FAA failed to provide the
necessary information, he should be provided with compensation of INR 20500.
He also mentioned that since both the CPIO and FAA failed to provide necessary information, he
was not able to submit the contingency grant utilisation certificate on time and for the past four
months, he is undergoing continuous mental agony, stress and depression. He has spent some of his
quality research time in drafting these appeals. So, he should be compensated with INR 20500,
which is the annual contingency grant amount for a senior research fellow. The appellant submitted
during the hearing that he has purchased a printer and the University had rejected the same being
not as per the UGC guidelines and hence he filed the present RTI application to get clarity.
The CPIO submitted that the applicant had already claimed his contingency fund for the period
from 01.07.2016 to 30.09.2019 and got the Fellowship, HRA, Contingency grant regularly.
Regarding his query no. 2 he informed that items covered under the head, Contingency has already
been mentioned in the Annexure IV of the UGC-NET-JRF guidelines. The Applicant has already
been informed to utilise the grant as per guidelines of the scheme. All contingency expenses can be
done within the allocation of Rs 20,500/- (contingency for SRF), as per the items mentioned in the
guidelines. He further submitted that they cannot be specific about the list of books or electronics to
be purchased and actually the concerned Guide and University has to see whether the item is
relevant in the context of the scholar's research area.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/156939559/
2
Shankar Prakash A vs University Grants Commission on 27 October, 2020
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the appellant is trying to redress his grievances in
the garb of seeking information. Further Annexure-IV mentions Electrical/Electronic goods and the
same is as per the availability of records, the CPIO cannot interpret the same. The Commission is
not empowered under the RTI Act to direct UGC to come up with a specific list of consumables and
heads to be utilised for the contingency grant as desired by the appellant. It is undoubtedly noted
that a specific list will avoid such ambiguity as arose in his case due to the word 'electronics' but the
RTI Act is not the relevant law to address such issues. Further, no information is due and whatever
was available was informed to the applicant. The plea for compensation of INR 20500 is also not
maintainable in the absence of any detriment caused to him.
Decision:
In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the
matter. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna ( . ) Information Commissioner () Authenticated true copy () A.K. Assija (. . ) Dy.
Registrar (-) 011-26182594 / / Date
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/156939559/
3