Central Information Commission Judgements

Ms. Abha Gupta vs Central Board Of Secondary … on 4 December, 2008

Central Information Commission
Ms. Abha Gupta vs Central Board Of Secondary … on 4 December, 2008
                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
                          Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
                                 Tel: + 91 11 26161796
                                                            Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2007/00916//SG/0410
                                                                      Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00916/

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Ms. Abha Gupta
30, Ekta Apartment,
Geeta Colony,
Delhi – 110031.

Respondent 1                            :       Mr. Rama Sharma,
                                                PIO

Central Board of Secondary Education,
Shiksha Bhawan, 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi.

RTI filed on                            :       20/03/2008
PIO replied                             :       30/04/2008
First appeal filed on                   :       05/05/2008
First Appellate Authority order         :       Not Mentioned.
Second Appeal filed on                  :       29/05/2008

Detail of information required.

S.No. Information Sought. The PIO replied.

1. Whether a person holding degree of AMIE The minimum qualification for Heads and
Sec. A and Sec. B in Civil Engg. + B.Ed. Teachers are provided in the Affiliation Bye-
(with teaching subjects Maths and Science) Law of CBSE which is readily available on
is eligible for the post of TGT (Maths) CBSE web-site www.cbse.inc.in

2. Whether the individual having the above Person with educational qualification and
mentioned qualifications can be appointed experience as per norms of CBSE can only be
as examiner for evaluation of class X CBSE appointed as examiner of the Board.
Board answer sheets.

The Appellant remarked:

Appellant had been applied for the information on 24/03/2008 but the information provided was
unsatisfactory.

The First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not mentioned

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Ms. Abha Gupta
Respondent : Ms. Rama Sharma, PIO
The respondent states that what has been sought is not ‘information’ as defined under the Act. The
queries seek interpretation of the rules. However, the PIO did try and provide some additional
information hoping to clarify the matter/
Decision:

The appeal is dismissed.

This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
4th December, 2008

(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)