A student who topped his batch in the Department of Criminology, University of Madras, invoked the Right to Information Act to get a medal he was entitled to for being the first rank holder.
In his petition before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Raj Kapil P. said first rank holders of every batch in the Department of Criminology were entitled to two medals – the R.M. Mahadevan Gold Medal and the N. Pitchandi Medal. Though he was the topper of the 2014-16 batch, he was not given either medal at the convocation held in 2017.
After taking it up with the authorities concerned, he was given the Mahadevan Gold Medal in 2018 but not the other award. Citing instances where toppers were recognised with two medals, Mr. Kapil questioned why the Pitchandi Medal was not issued to him despite his eligibility.
Replying to his queries under the RTI Act, the university’s Public Information Officer said the medal was not issued due to lack of funds. However, perusal of the statement of expenditure of previous years revealed that the medal was not given despite availability of sufficient funds in the medal account.
After hearing both sides, State Information Commissioner S. Muthuraj asked the Registrar, University of Madras, to take necessary steps to issue the Pitchandi Medal to the applicant, who had topped in the 2014-16 batch of M.Sc (Criminology & Criminal Justice Science).
Second appeal
In another appeal moved by Mr. Kapil relating to non-compliance of the Commission’s order directing the university to pay a compensation of ₹10,000 for not providing information sought under the RTI Act, Mr. Muthuraj sought an explanation from the Registrar as to why disciplinary action should not be recommended to the government against him for not complying with the order.
The issue involved the recruitment of candidates to the post of project coordinator in a UNICEF-funded programme in 2018. Since there was no communication from the authorities even weeks after Mr. Kapil appeared for the interview, he filed a petition under the RTI Act calling for the results. Not satisfied with the response, he moved the Commission.
In its earlier order passed in 2018, the TNIC observed that every candidate appearing for an interview had a right to know whether he/she had qualified for recruitment to the post or not. Pointing out that the University had failed as a public authority by not providing information to the candidate under the Act, Mr. Muthuraj ordered a compensation of ₹10,000 to the petitioner.
