Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • In The Central Information Commission at New Delhi

    Загружено:

    ErRajivAmie
    28 просмотров4 страницы
    1) The applicant filed an RTI request to the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) seeking information about his eligibility for the post of Assistant Professor based on his AMIE qualification. 2) The AICTE initially did not provide a substantive response to the request. At the Central Information Commission hearing, AICTE clarified that the AMIE course is not approved by AICTE. 3) The Information Commissioner directed the AICTE to inform the applicant in writing by February 5th that AMIE is not an approved qualification, and for the applicant to submit a compliance report by February 10th.

    Исходное описание:

    cccc

    Оригинальное название

    CIC_WB_A_2010_000500_M_49022

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    1) The applicant filed an RTI request to the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) seeking information about his eligibility for the post of Assistant Professor based on his AMIE qualification. 2) The AICTE initially did not provide a substantive response to the request. At the Central Information Commission hearing, AICTE clarified that the AMIE course is not approved by AICTE. 3) The Information Commissioner directed the AICTE to inform the applicant in writing by February 5th that AMIE is not an approved qualification, and for the applicant to submit a compliance report by February 10th.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    28 просмотров4 страницы

    In The Central Information Commission at New Delhi

    Загружено:

    ErRajivAmie
    1) The applicant filed an RTI request to the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) seeking information about his eligibility for the post of Assistant Professor based on his AMIE qualification. 2) The AICTE initially did not provide a substantive response to the request. At the Central Information Commission hearing, AICTE clarified that the AMIE course is not approved by AICTE. 3) The Information Commissioner directed the AICTE to inform the applicant in writing by February 5th that AMIE is not an approved qualification, and for the applicant to submit a compliance report by February 10th.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 4

    IntheCentralInformationCommission

    at
    NewDelhi
    FileNo:CIC/WB/A/2010/000500AD
    DateofHearing :December28,2010
    DateofDecision :December28,2010
    Parties:
    Applicant
    ShriYogendraArya
    F.No.467
    Pocket01,SectorB4
    PoliceColony
    Narela
    Delhi110040
    TheApplicantwaspresentforthehearing
    Respondent
    AllIndiaCouncilforTechnicalEducation
    7thFloor,ChanderLokBuilding
    Janpath
    NewDelhi
    Representedby:Dr.DerleD.V,CPIO&DirectorandShriD.R.Bhagat,PIO&UDC

    InformationCommissioner

    :Mrs.AnnapurnaDixit

    ___________________________________________________________________
    DecisionNotice

    The Commission directs the PIO to inform the Appellant in writing that AMIE course is not
    approvedbyAICTEandthatheisthereforenoteligibleforthepostofAssistantProfessor.

    IntheCentralInformationCommission
    at
    NewDelhi
    FileNo:CIC/WB/A/2010/000500AD
    ORDER
    Background
    1.

    TheApplicantfiledanRTIApplicationdt.4.2.10withthePIO,AICTEseekinginformationagainst4
    pointsregardinghiseligibilitytothepostof AssistantProfessorinTechnicalInstitutions(Degree)
    accordingtoRegulations2010whichshallcomeintoforcew.e.fthedateoftheirpublicationinofficial
    gazetteincludingwhetherAMIECourseisequivalenttoBE/B.TechandM.TechwithFirstDivision,In
    thisconnectiontheApplicantalsowantedtoknowwhetherhewaseligleforthepsotofAssistant
    Professor. Onnotreceivinganyreply,hefiledanappealdt.8.4.10withtheAppellateAuthority
    reiteratinghisrequestfortheinformation. Dr.R.S.Rathore,CPIOrepliedon1.4.10statingthatthe
    informationbeingsoughtisnotasperdefinitionofinformationgiveninSection2(f)oftheRTIAct,
    2005.Beingaggrievedwiththereply,theApplicantfiledasecondappealdt.20.5.10beforeCIC.

    Decision
    2.

    Duringthehearing,theAppellantwantedtoknowwhetherhisAMIEqualificationisrecognizedby
    AICTE.TheRespondentstatedthatinformationcouldnotbeprovidedalsobecausetheAppellant
    hadnotprovidedhiseducationalqualifications. Whenthe Appellantprovidedfurtherinformation
    regardinghiseducationalqualificationsincludingthefact thathehadcompletedhis AMIEfrom
    InstituteofEngineers,KolkattaandhadstudiedatGovt.College,DeenbandhuInstituteofScience
    andTechnology,Sonepat,Haryana,theRespondentsclarifiedthattheAMIEcourseisnotapproved
    byAICTE.

    3.

    TheCommissionafterhearingthesubmissionsbybothsidesdirectsthePIOtoinformtheAppellant
    inwritingthatAMIEisnotapprovedbyAICTEby5.2.11andtheAppellanttosubmitacompliance
    reporttotheCommissionby10.2.11.

    4.

    Theappealisdisposedofwiththeabovedirections.
    (AnnapurnaDixit)
    InformationCommissioner

    Authenticatedtruecopy

    (G.Subramanian)
    DeputyRegistrar

    Cc:

    1.

    ShriYogendraArya
    F.No.467
    Pocket01,SectorB4
    PoliceColony
    Narela
    Delhi110040

    2.

    ThePublicInformationOfficer
    AllIndiaCouncilforTechnicalEducation
    7thFloor,ChanderLokBuilding
    Janpath
    NewDelhi

    3.

    TheAppellateAuthority
    AllIndiaCouncilforTechnicalEducation
    7thFloor,ChanderLokBuilding
    Janpath
    NewDelhi

    4.

    OfficerIncharge,NIC

    Вам также может понравиться