JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rishikesh Giri, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sreenu Garapati, S.C.-III and learned counsel for the respondent / Jharkhand Academic Council, Mrs. Richa Sanchita. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 29.08.2018 passed by learned Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No. 09/2017 (JET), whereby the application filed by the appellant has been rejected on the following grounds; (i) That the document relied upon by the appellant has not been issued by the Public Information Officer of the College, which is mandatory under Right to Information Act, 2005, (ii) The Information Seeker is Tafazul Hussain, son of Asif Hazir, resident of Jamnagar, P.O. -Jamnagar, P.S. -Rajmahal, District – Sahebganj, the letter of the information Seeker is not on record, so it is difficult to co-relate the letter under reference with the application of the Information Seeker. (iii) The appellant has not disclosed how he came in possession of the said letter of the College, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not considered the letter of the said College to be a reliable and admissible document. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rishikesh Giri, while relying upon Annexure-7 has submitted that the said document is a public document and admissible under law and this Court may take cognizance of the document. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Narayan Singh Vs. Kallaram @ Kalluram Kushwah & Others reported in 2015 (2) M.P.L.J. and submitted that the documents obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005 can be admitted as a secondary evidence. 4. This Court has perused the said judgment and found that the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has considered, the certified copy of the document, obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 as a secondary evidence. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has considered Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also Section 65(f) of the Evidence Act. 5. In the present case, no certified copy of the document has been brought on record, rather a letter purported to be issued by Professor-in-Charge of the College has been alleged to be admitted as evidence. 6. Evidence has been defined under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as follows:-“Evidence”. 5. In the present case, no certified copy of the document has been brought on record, rather a letter purported to be issued by Professor-in-Charge of the College has been alleged to be admitted as evidence. 6. Evidence has been defined under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as follows:-“Evidence”. - “Evidence” means and includes - (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to the matter of the fact under enquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents including electronic record produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence. 7. In the present case, the document is not admitted by the respondent authorities nor the Professor-in-Charge has been impleaded as a party to admit the same. 8. Apart from this, the Tribunal has categorically held that the same document has not been issued by the Public Information Officer of the College, which is mandatory under Right to Information Act, 2005, nor the same has been issued to the appellant / applicant, rather it was purported to be issued to another person. The said information or document is also in contravention of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The applicant / appellant has not disclosed, how he came in possession of the said document. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered that such document cannot be relied upon. 9. The document has also been defined under Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as follows:- “Document”. -“Document” means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording the matter. 10. So far the cognizance is concerned, a document which is not reliable, this Court sitting in appeal cannot act as a fact finding court to take cognizance on the basis of such letter, which is itself not admissible under the law. 11. So far the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court is concerned, it has been held that the certified copy of a document obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005 can be secondary evidence. 12. In the present case, it is not a certified copy of the document. 11. So far the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court is concerned, it has been held that the certified copy of a document obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005 can be secondary evidence. 12. In the present case, it is not a certified copy of the document. A document can be considered as an evidence after properly proving the same in accordance with procedure of law and giving an opportunity to other side to cross-examine the same. After the document is admitted, the certified copy is issued and then in absence of original document, the certified copy of the said admitted document can be considered as secondary evidence. As such, judgment passed by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court is no help to the appellant. 13. Learned counsel for the Jharkhand Academic Council, Mrs. Richa Sanchita has submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly not relied upon the said document, as it was not issued by competent authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 14. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sreenu Garapati, S.C.-III has submitted that the State has not admitted the said document and as such, without proving the said document in accordance with law no reliance can be placed on the same and may not proceed on the basis of said document under the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act. 15. Considering the submission and the reason assigned by the learned Jharkhand Education Tribunal, the document at Annexure-7 is not admissible under the law unless and until it is proved in accordance with law before a competent court of law. Apart from that, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the same on the ground; firstly, that the document relied upon by the appellant has not been issued by the Public Information Officer of the College, which is mandatory under Right to Information Act, 2005, secondly, the Information Seeker is Tafazul Hussain, son of Asif Hazir, resident of Jamnagar, P.O. -Jamnagar, P.S. -Rajmahal, District – Sahebganj, the letter of the information Seeker is not on record, so it is difficult to co-relate the letter under reference with the application of the Information Seeker, thirdly, the appellant has not disclosed how he came in possession of the said letter of the College, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not considered the letter of the said College to be a reliable and admissible document. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 29.08.2018 passed by learned Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi. 16. The appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.