Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ajay Kumar Rawal vs Cbse on 12 December, 2017

                         Central Information Commission
         Room No.413, New CIC Building, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
                              New Delhi-110067
                              website-cic.gov.in

                       Case No. CIC/CBSE//A/2017/110527/MP

   Appellant.                     : Shri Ajay Kumar Rawal, Ghaziabad.

   Public Authority               : Central Board of Secondary Education,
                                    Delhi.


   Date of Hearing                : 07th December, 2017.

   Date of Decision               : 11th December, 2017.

   Present
   Appellant                      : Not present.

   Respondent                     : Ms. Rita Dhingra, Asstt. Secretary & Ms.
                                    Lata Arora at CIC.

   RTI application                :   11.10.2016
   CPIO's reply                   :   06.12.2016
   First Appeal                   :   21.12.2016
   FAA's order                    :   06.02.2017
   Second Appeal                  :   16.02.2017

   Information Commissioner : Manjula Prasher

                                        ORDER

1. The appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar Rawal submitted RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), Delhi seeking eligibility for TGT (Computer) during 2006 to 2010; whether B. Ed for TGT (Computer) was compulsory during 2006-2007 and the date from which B. Ed was made mandatory for TGT (Computer) etc. through five points.

2. The CPIO informed the appellant that eligibility criterion for TGT (Computer) was available on the website of CBSE www.cbseaff.nic.in. Dissatisfied with the decision of 1 the CPIO, the appellant approached the first appellate authority (FAA), who does not seem to have adjudicated on the appeal.

3. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Commission in second appeal on the grounds of no information having been provided to him by the respondent authority.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. The respondents stated that as per the bye-laws of 1995 of CBSE, B. Ed was mandatory for TGT (Computer) and these bye-laws were available on the website of the CBSE. The appellant was working with Ibrahim School, Rajabagh, Ghaziabad, which was not affiliated with the CBSE and therefore the appellant may like to approach the school management. They further added that the FAA adjudicated on the appellant's appeal vide order dated 06.02.2017, and concurred with the decision of the CPIO. The appellant was not present to put forth his contentions, if any.

5. Having considered the submissions of the respondents and perused the relevant record in file, the Commission observes that the respondent authority had provided information as available with CBSE. The Commission upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
Shri Ajay Kumar Rawal, The Central Public Information Officer, S/O Shri Balkrishan, Central Board of Secondary Education, Third-H-232, Nehru Nagar, Shiksha Kendra, Rakesh Marg, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Dist. Ghaziabad-201002. Delhi-110092.
The First Appellate Authority, Central Board of Secondary Education, Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.
2