Central Information Commission
Dheeraj Sah vs Ministry Of Defence on 26 October, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/DODEF/A/2021/127394
In the matter of
Dheeraj Sah
... Appellant
VS
CPIO,
Sainik School Ghorakhal,
Post Ghorakhal, Dist - Nainital
Uttarakhand - 263156
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 17/02/2021 CPIO replied on : 08/03/2021 First appeal filed on : 15/03/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 08/04/2021 Second Appeal filed on : 02/07/2021 Date of Hearing : 25/10/2022 Date of Decision : 25/10/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Commander Nagarajan, CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information pertaining to eligibility criteria for the post of TGT, Computer Science:
1. Whether a person possessing three year diploma in Computer Science and Engineering and B. Tech in Electronics and Communication, can apply for the post of TGT (Computer Science) along with other candidates, as Mathematics is one of the subjects in the course of B. Tech in Electronics and Communication?1
2. Whether for the post of TGT Computer Science, the requirement of having cleared CTET is mandatory?
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. He also submitted that Sec 2(f) prescribes for providing material information and hence the reply was not correct.
The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was sent to the appellant on 08.03.2021.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 08.03.2021 replied to the appellant and provided the copy of relevant page 58- 59 of the CBSE Affiliation Bye Laws 2018. The FAA vide order dated 08.04.2021 disposed of the first appeal and denied the information on point no. 2 of the RTI application u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission observed that available information was given to the appellant and therefore, no further action is required under the Act.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no scope for providing any relief to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
2