Student battles for provisional certificate

Information panel asks him to pay fee again, pulls up MKU

January 06, 2021 12:57 am | Updated 12:57 am IST

For more than a year, a student who completed M.A. (Economics) from the Madurai Kamaraj University was not issued course completion certificate and provisional certificate by the authorities despite finishing all formalities.

After repeated attempts to get the certificates failed, the student, Pawan Kumar of Kaithal district in Haryana, filed a petition under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking copies of the course completion certificate and the provisional certificate.

Not satisfied with the replies of the Public Information Officer/Assistant Registrar and the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Tamil Nadu Information Commission.

While the contention of the PIO was that the certificates were not issued since the applicant had not paid the prescribed fee, the student said that he paid the fee through Demand Draft (DD).

Mysterious transaction

Though the DD was accepted by the authorities, the amount was not credited in the account of the university. This was not communicated to the petitioner despite his petitions under the RTI Act.

When the appeal was taken up via telephonic enquiry, in view of the COVID-19 safety protocol, the PIO stated that he had sent a letter to the petitioner regarding the issue and asked him to send the credit details of the DD.

“It is impossible for the petitioner to get the details because the said transaction was made from one bank to another bank. Hence, the letter sent to the petitioner, after one year of RTI petition, by the Public Authority is irrelevant,” State Information Commissioner S. Muthuraj said.

Directing the student to pay the fee once again to get his certificate immediately, the SIC said the Commission had the power to direct the university to award compensation to the petitioner under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, for the loss suffered by him.

Mr. Muthuraj also directed the PIO of the Directorate of Distance Education, Madurai Kamaraj University, to send an explanation within 15 days as to why disciplinary action should not be recommended under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, against him for not providing information to the petitioner.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.