Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 7(6) of RTI Act. Shailesh Gandhi Information
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Section 7(6) of RTI Act. Shailesh Gandhi Information

    Samar Singh Yadav (Dr.) v. Satish Kumar

    Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000648/18517 Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000648 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Dr. Samar Singh Yadav, R/o V & P.O. Nagal Chaudhary, District-Mahendragarh, Haryana-123 023. Respondent : Mr. Satish Kumar PIO & Under Secretary Department of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, A Wing, New Delhi. RTI application filed on : 13/10/2011 PIO replied : 10/02/2012 First appeal filed on : 24/11/2011 First Appellate Authority order : Not Enclosed. Second Appeal received on : 27/02/2012 Information Sought:

    1. Whether the certificate/diploma courses in Lab.Technician and other paramedical courses conducted by Bharat Sevak Samaj, Chennai, is acceptable by the Central and State governments job opportunities? Whether these courses are acceptable for self employment or not?

    2. Whether the courses for Lab. Technicians conducted by Bharat Sevak Samaj are affiliated by the NCTE and MHRP? Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):

    1. There is no Central Council/Regulatory Authority to regulate institutions imparting paramedical education

    i.e. Lab Tech. course.

    2. Information with respect to other points is not pertaining to PMS Section. Grounds for the First Appeal: No reply from the PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA): Not enclosed/not heard. Grounds for the Second Appeal: Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present: Appellant: Dr. Samar Singh Yadav on video conference from NIC-Mahendragarh Studio; Respondent: Mr. Satish Kumar, PIO & Under Secretary; and Dr. Kamlesh Kumar, Section Officer; . The PIO states that the Central Government has no role to play in the matters being raised by the Appellant and hence there is no information on the matters for which the Appellant is seeking information. Decision: The Appeal is disposed. The information sought by the appellant is not available and hence cannot be provided. This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act. Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner

    20 April 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SS)

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Samar Singh Yadav (Dr.) v. Satish Kumar
    (Apr 20, 2012)