Central Information Commission
Prasanta Ojha vs Department Of School Education And ... on 5 September, 2019
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
Decision no.: CIC/DSELI/A/2018/127086/01558
File no.: CIC/DSELI/A/2018/127086
In the matter of:
Prasanta Ojha
...Appellant
VS
Public Information Officer/ Under Secretary
National Council for Teacher Education
Hans Bhawan, Wing II,
1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002
&
Public Information Officer
National Council for Teacher Education
G-7, Sector - 10, Dwarka,
Landmark - Nr. Metro Station, Delhi - 110 075
&
CPIO/ Under Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Department of School Education & Literacy,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001
... Respondents
RTI application filed on : 15/12/2017 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 09/03/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 20/03/2018 Date of Hearing : 04/09/2019 Date of Decision : 04/09/2019 The following were present:
1Appellant: Shri Ashit Kumar Das, Representative of the appellant, present over VC Respondent: Shri Pramod Tripathi, Training Officer & CPIO, NIOS and Shri Hitender Chand, Representative of the CPIO, MHRD, Shri Prabhu Kumar Yadav, Under Secretary & Rep of PIO , NCTE, all present in person.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. What action has been taken on letter No. 1018/ODSA, dated 08/11/2017 of Odisha D.El.Ed. Students' Association.
2. If any action has been taken towards above said letter, then provide detail data of the action taken on this matter.
3. What action has been taken to cancel the admission of candidates (untrained teachers) who were admitted illegally in NIOS - D.El.Ed. Course -
2017 from Govt. unrecognised private elementary school. Provide district wise data on cancellation of admission.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The representative of the appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO.
The CPIO, NIOS submitted after the MHRD transferred the RTI application to them, an appropriate reply had been provided to the appellant on 30.01.2018.
Observation:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that a proper reply had been provided to the appellant on 30.01.2018. Moreover, during the hearing also, the representative of the appellant was not able to point out the deficiencies in the said reply and in such a situation, no further relief can be given to the appellant.2
File no.: CIC/DSELI/A/2018/127086 Decision:
Based on the above observations, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO dated 30.01.2018 and finds no scope for further action in the matter. However, the respondent is directed to send a copy of the reply dated 30.01.2018 to the appellant by speed post and via e-mail within 7 days of the receipt of this order.
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
3