Central Information Commission
Ravi Chand vs National Council Of Educational ... on 30 April, 2026
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NSERT/A/2025/627620
Ravi Chand .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL
RESEARCH AND TRAINING (NCERT),
RTI CELL, SHRI AUROBINDO MARG,
NEW DELHI - 110016 .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.04.2026
Date of Decision : 29.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.04.2025
CPIO replied on : 08.04.2025
First appeal filed on : 15.04.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 06.05.2025
2nd Appeal dated : Nil
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.04.2025 seeking the following information:
"NCERT vide notice F.No.11-4/2019-20-Ε.III/R-II./5320-5324 dated 23.12.2024 notified status of documents verification (for the posts of Page 1 of 3 Junior Accountant) held on 23.12.2024 and cancellation of candidature of absentee and not-eligible candidates (copy attached). In this connection, kindly provide the list of candidate(s) who have joined the post of Junior Accountant and who have been issued offer letter(s) but still not joined."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.04.2025 stating as under:
"5 Offer Letters were issued. Information regarding joining pertains and forwarded to E-II Section."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.04.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 06.05.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Ms. Kiran Juneja, PIO along with Shri Chanchal Kumar, Assistant present in person.
5. Appellant did not turn up for hearing despite service.
6. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
7. PIO stated that a timely response has been provided to the Appellant at the initial stage. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, the PIO revisited the contents of RTI application and furnished a revised updated reply to the Appellant on 22.04.2026 with the permissible details of 05 candidates to whom offer letters were issued for the subject appointment. PIO added that absence of the Appellant during hearing could be due to receipt of requisite information after filing of this Second Appeal.
Decision:
Page 2 of 38. Heard the party, appeared.
9. On perusal of the materials placed on record and hearing the submissions of the PIO, the Commission observed that as far as information sought by the Appellant is concerned suitable reply was provided by the PIO earlier and also upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, the PIO revisit the records and provided a revised updated reply to the Appellant with the details of candidates to whom offer letters were issued for the posts under reference. The submissions tendered by the CPIO during hearing adequately serves the purpose of Appellant filing the RTI application in question in terms of the RTI Act, 2005.
10. Further, in the light of the averments of the CPIO during hearing that the Appellant did not turn up for hearing after receiving the requisite information, the Commission finds no scope to intervene in the matter and upholds the submission of the CPIO.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Ravi Chand Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)