Appellant: Age limit for the Position of Chairman & Secretary managing the Self - financing Colleges was sought - CIC: A day before hearing, respondent sent additional information sought to the appellant and the appellant was satisfied; No intervention

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.04.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) What is the Maximum Age limit Criteria for the Chairman, Secretary whom is managing the Self-financing Colleges? As Since from the UGC website under the UGC Regulations, it is showing UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2019 published in the Gazette of India Dated: 20^th Feb 2019 in Criteria D: sub section: (i), it was given that the the Vice Chancellor is allowed to hold the position of a Deemed to be University up to a maximum of 70 Years and not beyond that. But as far as the Self-Financing Colleges it has not provided. Henceforth I request your good office to provide the age limit for the Position of Chairman & Secretary managing the Self - financing Colleges (both aided and un-aided).

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.07.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“Information will be provided by CPP-1/DU College section”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.08.2022, alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 21.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“With regard to the service conditions and age criteria is described in the UGC regulations on Minimum Qualification for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education 2018. These regulations are available on UGC website www.ugc.ac.”

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.12.2022.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Dr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Under Secretary attended the hearing in person

6. When enquired by the Commission regarding a recent reply from the respondent, the appellant submitted that information sought had been received from the respondent.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 18.07.2022. Moreover, a day before hearing, they had sent additional information sought to the appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that a day before hearing, the respondent had sent additional information sought to the appellant and the appellant was satisfied with the said reply. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope for further intervention in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Rajesh Balasubramanian v. UGC, CIC/UGCOM/A/2022/666416; Date of Decision: 18.03.2024