Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
akhilesh yadav

Bureaucrats refuse to consider youth for top posts

Recommended Posts

akhilesh yadav

[h=2]Documents reveal that when it came to curbing corruption and empowerment of citizens by filling key posts at the Central Information Commission, bureaucrats chose to introduce an arbitrary provision.[/h]While Prime Minister Narendra Modi has seldom shied away from referring to India's 'demographic dividend' and goading the youth to do more, the top bureaucrats running his administration share little of his enthusiasm.

Documents reveal that when it came to curbing corruption and empowerment of citizens by filling key posts at the Central Information Commission, bureaucrats chose to introduce an arbitrary provision to keep the youth out. They instead opted to empower retired government servants. This occurred in the much-delayed and recently-concluded selection for the post of one Chief Information Commissioner and three Information Commissioners (ICs).

An application under the Right to Information Act of 2005 (RTI), filed by retired naval officer, Commodore Lokesh Batra, has unearthed nearly 250 pages of the official correspondence for the same.

 

Read more at: Bureaucrats refuse to consider youth for top posts : India, News - India Today

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
      BLOCK IV, OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI 110067


       

      F.No.PBA/06/149
      22nd September, 2006


       
       

      Appeal No.112 /ICPB/2006


      In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19.
       

      Appellant: Shri Dhruba Charan Naik
      Public authority: Department of Post, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneshwar. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices & CPIO. Shri S.K. Kamila, Director Postal Services – Appellate Authority.
      FACTS:
       
      By an application dated 21.3.2006 addressed to the CPIO, the appellant has requested for information regarding percentage of marks obtained by the last candidate (category wise i.e. OBC/SC/ST) of selected candidates of open market for filling up vacancies of Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants for the recruitment years 1994, 1995 and 1996 separately,
      pertaining to Sundargarh Postal Division. It appears that the CPIO declined to furnish the information and accordingly he appealed to the AA. By a decision dated 2.5.2006, the AA directed the CPIO to furnish the information sought for by the appellant and accordingly, the CPIO furnished certain information on 9.5.2006, which according to the appellant was incomplete and therefore, he filed an appeal before the Post Master General, who has advised him that the second appeal lies before this Commission and accordingly, the appellant has filed
      this appeal on 25.6.2006. Comments were called for from the CPIO in which the CPIO has furnished full information and it is also stated that similar information has been sent to the appellant. On receipt of the comments and reply, the appellant has written to the CPIO on 17.8.2006, seeking for certain clarification and endorsing a copy of the said letter, the appellant has sought time to file his rejoinder after receipt of clarifications from the CPIO.
       
      DECISION:
       
      From the reply furnished to the appellant as per the comments, I find that whatever information that the appellant had sought, the same has been furnished to the appellant. In his letter dated 17.8.2006 addressed to the CPIO, the appellant has not questioned the information
      furnished but has asked for not only additional information but also raised various queries un connected with the information sought and provided. A far as this appeal is concerned, since the information sought has been provided, the appeal stands closed.
       
      3. Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
       
       


      Sd/-
      (Padma Balasubramanian)
      Information Commissioner


    • venugopal
      By venugopal
      I had asked for the information from the superintendent of Post Office about details of my registered letter which I had booked 3 years before, but he has refused to give the information saying that he cannot give that information.
       
      He has not written why he cannot give that information. Should I go for appeal?

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy