Central Information Commission
Dr.S P Yadav vs Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare on 16 April, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000579/18407
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000579
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. S. P. Yadav
Rajendra Nagar hospital
Road no.- 6
Rajendra Nagar, Patna- 16
Respondent Dr. A. S. Rathore
Public Information officer & ADG Ministry of health and family welfare (NPCB) Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi RTI application filled on : 10/11/2011 PIO replied : not enclosed First appeal filed on : 19/12/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 09/01/2012 Second Appeal received on : 17/02/2012 The Appellant had sought information regarding the optometric and ophthalmic assistance courses running in the country.
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. How many institutes are allowed to run bachelor .As per NPCB, established training institutes course of Optometry and ophthalmic assistance by for ophthalmic assistance is enclosed. the Ministry of health and family welfare of India. kindly enclose the list.
2. How many institutes are providing the bachelor Except from the above mentioned, training course of optometry and ophthalmic assistance in institutes are working in many personal whole country? institutes. Such information are not kept at central level.
3. Is government in favour of providing uniformity Not having general category in ophthalmic among all above mentioned courses by providing assistance in country, uniformity in the its syllabus, duration and their admissions? If yes syllabus, duration and admissions is not then uptill when it will do the same and if no then provided in ophthalmic assistant courses. why?
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO has not received the application so unable to reply.Page 1 of 2
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. S. P. Yadav on video conference from NIC-Patna Studio; Respondent: Dr. A. S. Rathore, Public Information officer & ADG;
As regards query-1 the PIO has provided a list of Institutes recognized by the Central Government in which Training Courses are held. The PIO states that no courses have been sanctioned for Bachelor courses.
With respect to query-2 the Respondent clarifies further that these are not govern or regulated by the Central Government.
As regards query-3 the PIO admits that there appears to be a vacuum in terms of maintaining uniformity for the curriculum and the period for bachelor courses across the country. However, the PIO states that though the Central Government is initiating some steps towards this no final decisions have been taken so far.
The Appellant is guided by Public interest and ensuring that there is some uniformity and standardization in Ophthalmic Education in the Country. It is evident from the information provided by the PIO that this is lacking presently. The Commission hopes that this would be done at the earliest by the Central Government and also takes this opportunity to comment the Appellant for pursuing such important matters for public good.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records has been provided and the PIO has also given further clarifications.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 16 April 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SS) Page 2 of 2