Central Information Commission
Dr Jitendra Sharma vs National Council For Teacher Education on 30 May, 2022
CIC/NCTED/A/2020/696278
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/NCTED/A/2020/696278
In the matter of:
Dr Jitendra Sharma ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
National Council for Teacher
Education, G-7 Sector 7,
Rohini, New Delhi -110075
2. The Central Public Information
Officer, National Council for
Teacher Education, G-7, Sector-10,
Near Sector-10 Metro Station,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 04.09.2020
CPIO replied on : Not on Record
First Appeal filed on : 19.10.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Second Appeal received on : 15.12.2020
Date of Hearing : 25.05.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent (Despite being served the hearing notice)
Page 1 of 6
CIC/NCTED/A/2020/696278
Respondent: Shri. Priyank Jain, Section Officer & PIO, participated in the
hearing in person
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 04.09.2020 seeking information as under:
"Note: This pertains to WRC, NCTE New Delhi.
The NoC issued to the Teachers Colleges of Rajasthan for admissions in BEd Course for 2020-21 session is attached.
There is the following provision in Sec 3.1of the Norms and Standards of NCTE for Intake in BEd program There shall be a basic unit of 50 students, with a maximum of two units. There shall not be more than twenty five students per teacher for a school subject for methods courses and other practical activities of the program to facilitate participatory teaching and learning.
There are many Colleges/institutions which have been allowed an intake of more than 100 students (2 Units of 50 students each) in one academic session.
It is but natural that the National Council for Teacher Education had granted recognition to these Colleges/Institutions for 150, 200, 250, and 300 students in one session.
In this way some Colleges/Institutions have been allowed to have 300, 400, 500 and even 600 students to study there every session.
Some Colleges/Institutions have the permission to admit students in the numbers which are more than 100 but not multiples of 50.
It is in the above context that I seek the following information under the RTI Act 205 Page 2 of 6 CIC/NCTED/A/2020/696278 If any amendment was made in accordance with which the intake of more than two Units of students was allowed to such Colleges/Institutions, then please provide the self-attested copy of such amendment.
If no such amendment was there, then please provide the selfattested copy of the provision which authorised the Regional Committee to deviate from the Sec 3.1of the above referred Norm in granting recognition for more than two Units.
Please provide the selfattested copy of the infrastructure Norms, Faculty Norms related to number of Faculty required, and other Norms that have been prescribed for, 3 4, 5 and 6 Units of BEd students per academic year ie 150, 200, 250 and 300 students per academic year of 2 years of BEd Course."
Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.10.2020, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per available records.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non- receipt of information from the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice.Page 3 of 6
CIC/NCTED/A/2020/696278 The Respondent submitted that the information with respect to the instant RTI Application has already been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 05.01.2021 and the contents of the same are under:
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri. Parvinder Singh, Section Officer & PIO (Regulations) vide letter dated 17.05.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the information sought vide instant RTI Application are clarificatory in nature, an adequate reply has been provided to the appellant. Moreover, the Appellant did not Page 4 of 6 CIC/NCTED/A/2020/696278 participate in the hearing to buttress his case. Hence, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 30.05.2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 5 of 6 CIC/NCTED/A/2020/696278 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) National Council for Teacher Education, G-7 Sector 7, Rohini, New Delhi -110075
2. The Central Public Information Officer National Council for Teacher Education, G-7 Sector 7, Rohini, New Delhi -110075
3. The Central Public Information Officer, National Council for Teacher Education, G-7, Sector-10, Near Sector-10 Metro Station, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
3. Dr Jitendra Sharma Page 6 of 6