Background: why this RTI was filed
Verification requests and information requests are answered, or they are not. When they are not, the reason given is itself a piece of information, and it is worth recording as carefully as any substantive answer.
This record documents what happened to an RTI application addressed to Singhania University in January 2026. The university replied within the month. It supplied nothing, and gave a procedural reason.
| Document | Reply under the Right to Information Act, 2005 |
| Reference | SU/PIO/2026-27/Ver./01/01 |
| Dated | 31/01/2026 |
| Authority | Singhania University, Pacheri Bari, Jhunjhunu – 333515, Rajasthan |
| Issued by | Public Information Officer, Singhania University |
| Application | application dated 07/01/2026 under the RTI Act 2005 |
| Institution | Singhania University, Pacheri Bari, Jhunjhunu – 333515, Rajasthan |
What the document says
The reply is three numbered points on a single page under the university's letterhead, signed by its Public Information Officer under the PIO seal.
The first point disposes of the application: it was not submitted in accordance with the prescribed RTI Rules of the University, and it is advised that the application may be replied in accordance with the RTI Rules prescribed on the University website.
The second directs the applicant to follow the online procedure given on the university's website. The third names the Registrar of the university as Appellate Authority.
No question is answered, and no information is enclosed. The document records a refusal to supply information on procedural grounds, and nothing more.
Key findings
No information was supplied
The reply contains no answer to any question. It disposes of the application by directing the applicant to a procedure.
Grounded on the university's own RTI Rules
The stated reason is that the application was not submitted in accordance with the prescribed RTI Rules of the University.
An online procedure is prescribed
The applicant is advised to follow the online procedure given on the university's website.
An internal appellate authority is named
The Registrar of the university is named as Appellate Authority.
Turnaround of 24 days
The application is dated 07/01/2026 and the reply 31/01/2026.
“It is submitted that the application has not been submitted in accordance with the prescribed RTI Rules of the University.”
— Public Information Officer, Singhania University, SU/PIO/2026-27/Ver./01/01, 31/01/2026
What employers and students should know
This page records a procedural outcome, not a finding about the university's standing, its recognition or any degree it has issued. A returned application proves only that the application was returned.
It is relevant in one practical respect. Where an employer or a student expects to confirm a credential by writing to the institution, this reply is evidence of the form that a written approach to this university produced on this occasion: a direction to a website procedure rather than an answer. Anyone planning a verification should build that into their timetable and keep their own record of what was asked and when.
Two details on the face of the document are worth noting for anyone who receives a similar reply. The first is that the letter does not identify which of the university's prescribed rules the application failed to satisfy, so it gives the applicant nothing specific to correct before trying again. The second is that it names an internal appellate authority — the Registrar of the same university — rather than an external one, which is the ordinary position where an institution operates its own information procedure rather than being treated as a public authority under the Act.
Neither observation decides anything. They are simply the features of the document that determine what an applicant can practically do next: follow the online procedure named in point 2, or appeal to the Registrar named in point 3.
- Keep a dated copy of any request you send and of any reply you receive, whatever it says.
- If you are directed to an online procedure, follow it and keep the acknowledgement or reference number it generates.
- Where a reply names an internal appellate authority, note the thirty-day window that usually applies to an appeal.
- If the information concerns recognition or degree-awarding powers rather than an individual student, consider asking the UGC or the state regulator, who hold that material independently.
- Keep the reply reference — SU/PIO/2026-27/Ver./01/01 — with the file.
What this record shows:
- Singhania University's PIO replied on 31/01/2026 to an application dated 07/01/2026.
- The reply states the application was not submitted in accordance with the university's prescribed RTI Rules.
- The reply directs the applicant to the RTI Rules and an online procedure on the university website.
- The reply names the Registrar as Appellate Authority.
What it does not show:
- It does not answer any question put in the application.
- It does not state anything about the university's recognition, degrees, students or records.
- It is not a finding by any regulator, and it is not a finding of wrongdoing by anyone.
- It does not show what would have happened had the online procedure been used.
Every statement on this page is drawn from the official document described above. Readers should rely on the original document and the issuing authority for any decision.