1 2025:CGHC:629 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 999 of 2024 1. Sunil Bante S/o Dulichand Bante Aged About 50 Years R/o Chandra Paradise Flat No. 410, Fourth Floor, Kelo Vihar, District Raigarh, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Information Commission Through The Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dist. Raipur, C.G. 2. First Appellate Authority Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, C.G. 3. Public Information Officer Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shyam Sundar Tekchandani Advocate For Respondents No.2&3 : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Order on Board By Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 6/1/2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 6-10-2023 (Annexure – P/1) by which the State Information Commission has rejected the appeal, which was filed by the petitioner to question the communication dated 15-3-2021 of the Public Information Officer of the respondent University. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that he was seeking the prospectus/ minimum eligibility criteria for admission into the B.P.Ed. course during 2 the academic session 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, however, the Public Information Officer of the University has informed the petitioner vide Annexure – P/3 that the eligibility criteria was fixed as per the criteria fixed by the NCTE (National Council for Teachers Education). The petitioner would further submit that the information provided by the University is not sufficient because they have not stated anything regarding eligibility criteria provided during the academic session 2002- 03, 2003-04, 2004-05. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the University, ex adverso, would submit that as the eligibility criteria/information sought for by the petitioner is of the academic session 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, the said criteria as well as the guidelines of the NCTE is not available with the University, therefore, the same cannot be provided to the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 5. It appears from the communication dated 15-3-2021 that the University has informed the petitioner that the eligibility criteria for admission to the B.P.Ed. course during the academic session 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004- 05 was in accordance with the guidelines of the NCTE, however, they have not stated anything that whether the same is available in the University or not and as such, the communication dated 15-3-2021 is not at all just and proper. 6. Under the circumstances, the Public Information Officer of the University may pass a detailed and reasoned order regarding eligibility criterial prevailing during the academic session 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004- 05 or may mention in the order that whether the said information is available with the University or not. The entire exercise shall be completed at the earliest preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.01.06 17:07:50 +0530