Nyooz: Chennai: Friday, July 01,
2016.
With no
response forthcoming, he preferred to file an RTI petition on October 31, 2015,
on the action taken on his complaint. Not satisfied with the response, Rajamani
took up the case with the State Information Commission. In his order, the CIC
stressed that the response to the RTI petition was not satisfactory and also
well beyond the time limit of 30 days. The CIC also directed the PIO to reply
to the petitioner indicating the action taken on his original petition dated
September 1, 2015. Hence, the university was directed to pay compensation of
`15000 to the petitioner within three months.
Coming to the
rescue of a rural student, who was kept waiting to receive his degree
certificate for more than a year after the final results, the State Information
Commission has pulled up an official of the Thiruvalluvar University, besides
directing the university to pay compensation to the student for the detriment
he suffered. The immediate action follows after S Rajamani, a resident of
Eduthavainatham village in Villupuram district and a student of the university,
filed a Right to Information (RTI) petition seeking status report on a
complaint he had lodged about the non-provision of his educational degree.
During an appellate hearing at the commission recently, the petitioner
represented that even after the declaration of final results in September,
2014, he didn’t get the mark sheet, provisional certificate as well as degree
certificate. The following year, Rajamani filed a complaint with the university
on September 1, 2015. With no response forthcoming, he preferred to file an RTI
petition on October 31, 2015, on the action taken on his complaint. In response
to the RTI, the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the university on December
7, 2015, informed the petitioner that he had not submitted relevant documents
and hence the degree could not be issued. Not satisfied with the response,
Rajamani took up the case with the State Information Commission. At the
enquiry, earlier this month, the official representing the university
maintained that the documents were still awaited but this was dismissed by the
Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) who recalled that the petitioner had
enclosed all relevant documents through a letter sent on December 30, 2015. The
CIC also directed the PIO to reply to the petitioner indicating the action
taken on his original petition dated September 1, 2015.
In his order,
the CIC stressed that the response to the RTI petition was not satisfactory and
also well beyond the time limit of 30 days. A show-cause notice was issued to
the PIO, asking him why action should not be taken against him under section 20
(1) and 20 (2) of the RTI Act. Noting that the student hailed from a very poor family,
thereby forcing his father to take loans to fund his son’s education, the
Information Commission also took cognisance of the petitioner’s grievance that
the non-provision of degree cost him several jobs as well as higher study
opportunities. Hence, the university was directed to pay compensation of `15000
to the petitioner within three months.
.JPG)
.JPG)
