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
ganpat1956

Reveal info on empanelment of sr. officers: CIC

Recommended Posts

ganpat1956

NEW DELHI: Magsaysay awardee, Arvind Kejriwal, has returned to the Central Information Commission with the case that provoked the abortive attempt to pull file notings out of the ambit of the Right to Information Act.

 

Reason: despite its promise to CIC five months ago, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has failed to disclose the manner in which senior bureaucratic appointments are being made.

 

In his complaint to CIC filed on December 12, Kejriwal alleged that DoPT had avoided giving information relating to appointments at the level of secretary and additional secretary by claiming that those details were actually available with the cabinet secretariat.

 

But even if DoPT officials really did not have records on senior appointments, Kejriwal pointed out that they were required by the RTI Act, in such a situation, to transfer his request to the cabinet secretariat, along with CIC's July 14 order directing disclosure of information within a month.

 

Besides seeking a fresh direction to the cabinet secretariat on information relating to appointments at the level of secretary and additional secretary, Kejriwal requested CIC to issue penalty notices to DoPT officials for not complying with its July 14 order.

 

A former IRS officer, Kejriwal first asked for such sensitive information from DoPT more than a year ago under RTI to see whether the officers selected for the level of secretary and additional secretary in various ministries fulfil the prescribed criterion of "specific suitability", despite being drawn mainly from the generalist stream of IAS.

 

Kejriwal's application raised the hackles of the IAS lobby which saw it as an attempt to expose their monopoly over all top posts, regardless of their suitability for the increasingly technical demands of those jobs

 

The information asked for may lay bare the manipulations that allow an officer to be posted as telecom secretary, for instance, without having any qualification or experience in that specialised field.

 

While withholding all information pertaining to the level of secretary and additional secretary, DOPT has been less secretive with Kejriwal about appointments made at lower levels, that of joint secretary and downwards.

 

He was allowed to inspect those files. But Kejriwal's grievance is that he was not supplied with copies of documents despite an express provision in the RTI Act for such service against payment of photocopying charges.

 

While rejecting his request for copies of documents, DoPT cited another RTI provision which permits it to refuse on the ground that photocopying all those files would "disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority."

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sidmis

Reveal info on empanelment of sr. officers: CIC

By Bureau Report in Zee News June 24, 2008

 

New Delhi, June 22: The Central Information Commission has directed the Centre to disclose details pertaining to selection of officers for the post of secretaries and additional secretaries at the central government.

 

The apex transparency panel's order came on an appeal of RTI activist and Magsaysay award winner Arvind Kejariwal seeking information on appointment of senior bureaucrats from 2004 to 2006.

 

"The Commission directs the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and cabinet secretariat to allow inspection of relevant files concerning empanelment of additional secretaries and secretaries to the Government of India," a three-member CIC bench said.

 

The bench comprising M M Ansari, O P Kejariwal and Padma Balasubramanium directed the government to reveal the grading of officers, who were taken into consideration for the posts, and turned down the Centre's plea that the information was exempted under the RTI Act.

 

"As the charts (on officers' grading) would not contain any personal information, the commission saw no objection in disclosing the information," the bench said, while directing the Cabinet Secretariat to provide information to Kejariwal within 20 days.

 

Kejariwal approached the commission after the DoPT refused to reveal all the information stating that it was exempted under the RTI Act.

The Commission also pulled up the Cabinet Secretariat for "evading its responsibility" by not responding to RTI request and instead referring the matter to DoPT.

 

"Being custodians of information, it was mandatory on its part to have decided the matter," the bench said.

 

 

Zee News - empanelment of sr. officers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

As reported by Manoj Mitta of TNN in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 25 June 2008:

CIC takes on IAS lobby over appointment criteria-India-The Times of India

 

CIC takes on IAS lobby over appointment criteria

 

Thanks to judicial intervention, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has mustered the will to take on the powerful IAS lobby on an appeal filed by Magsaysay awardee Arvind Kejriwal.

 

The disclosures ordered by CIC on June 12 have opened up the possibility of finding out how many of the senior officers appointed to the levels of secretary and additional secretary in various ministries fulfiled the prescribed criterion of "specific suitability."

 

A three-member bench of CIC directed the government that it could not claim to have complied with its orders although it had disclosed details of the appointments made only up to the level of joint secretary. Since most of the posts above the level of joint secretary are held by IAS officers, Kejriwal had sought information on all senior bureaucratic appointees to ascertain whether they met the central staffing scheme's stipulation of "specific suitability" despite being drawn mainly from the generalist stream.

 

The three-member bench's decision overturns an April 2007 order in which CIC member M M Ansari had rejected Kejriwal's complaint that, by denying him access to the files, the government had failed to comply with a July 2006 direction for transparency.

 

Curiously, Ansari was allowed to be part of the three-member bench constituted to reconsider his April 2007 order in the wake of a Delhi high court direction obtained by Kejriwal in September 2007. In the event, the fresh hearing held this year did bring about a change in his view as Ansari went along with the other two members on the bench in acknowledging that the government could hardly claim to have complied with CIC's order without showing Kejriwal a scrap of paper related to the appointments of secretaries and additional secretaries.

 

In its unanimous order of June 12, the bench comprising Ansari, O P Kejariwal and Padma Balasubramanian directed the department of personnel and training and cabinet secretariat to allow inspection of — and make copies of — the files related to the appointments to the levels of secretary and additional secretary to the government of India. CIC also got around RTI restrictions on disclosure of third party information. This is because Kejriwal conceded that he would not seek copies of the annual confidential report of each of the officers. CIC agreed with his suggestion that he could be shown the chart displaying the grading of the officers. "Since the charts as such would not contain any personal information, the commission saw no objection in providing these to the appellant," it said.

 

Kejriwal, a former revenue service officer, has been seeking to uncover the nature of bureaucratic postings since November 2005. His RTI application raised the hackles of the IAS lobby which saw it as an attempt to expose their near-monopoly over top posts regardless of their suitability for the increasingly technical demands of those jobs. The information asked for may lay bare the manipulations that allow an officer to be posted as telecom secretary, for instance, without having any qualification or experience in that specialized field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

As reported by IANS in thaindian.com on 11 September 2008:

Activist moves court on top bureaucrats’ selection process

Activist moves court on top bureaucrats’ selection process

 

New Delhi, Sep 11 (IANS) RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal Thursday approached the Delhi High Court against the central government for not giving details on the procedure for selection of bureaucrats for top posts. The Central Information Commission June 12 directed the department of personnel and training (DoPT) and the Cabinet Secretariat to disclose details pertaining to selection of officers for the post of secretaries and additional secretaries at the central government.

 

Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Kejriwal, submitted that he approached court as the central government had not complied with the CIC’s directions and the transparency panel had no power to punish for contempt of its order.

 

Justice G.S. Sistani asked the central government to inform the court Sep 23 of the reasons for not following CIC’s directions.

 

The three-member CIC bench had directed the government to reveal the grading of officers who are considered for posts of secretaries and additional secretaries.

 

The commission directed the DoPT and the Cabinet Secretariat to allow inspection of relevant files concerning empanelment of additional secretaries and secretaries to the government of India, the CIC had said.

 

Kejriwal, a Magsaysay Award winner, had sought disclosure of information, contending that it was in the larger public interest as the people had the right to know as to what was the grade assigned to an officer who has been empanelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ganpat1956

As published in The Hindu (Sept 12, 2008)

 

 

New Delhi (PTI): RTI activist and Magsaysay Award winner Arvind Kejariwal has approached the Delhi High Court against the Centre for not giving details on the procedure for selection of bureaucrats for top posts, despite a direction by the Central Information Commission.

 

The apex transparency panel had on June 12 directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Cabinet Secretariat to disclose details pertaining to selection of officers for the post of secretaries and additional secretaries at the central government.

 

Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Kejariwal, contended that he had to move court as the Centre had not complied with the CIC's directions and the transparency panel had no power to punish for contempt of its order.

Justice G S Sistani, taking account of his plea, asked the Centre to inform the court on September 23 on the reasons for not following the directions of the CIC.

 

"The order passed by the CIC cannot be allowed to be frustrated," the court said.

 

The three-member CIC bench had directed the Government to reveal the grading of officers who are considered for posts of secretaries and additional secretaries.

 

"The Commission directs the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and Cabinet Secretariat to allow inspection of relevant files concerning empanelment of Additional Secretaries and Secretaries to the Government of India," the CIC had said.

 

Kejariwal had sought disclosure of information, contending that it was in the larger public interest as the people had the right to know as to what was the grade assigned to an officer who has been empanelled.

 

The Hindu News Update Service

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vijendra singh

What a sad anomaly ! The ex -secretary of DoPT denied the info to Arvind , was rewarded by PM by appointing him info commissioner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

What a co-incident???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

In a full bench decision, CIC has finally ordered full inspection of all documents be allowed and copies given to Mr Arvind Kejariwal free of charge.

 

The order is attached to this post.

FB-27112008-02.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

As reported by IANS in sify.com on 31 July 2010:

Appointments of senior officials not under RTI: Court

 

Appointments of senior officials not under RTI: Court

 

The Delhi High Court Friday said that information pertaining to appointment of top bureaucrats cannot be revealed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

 

Justice S. Muralidhar passed this order while dismissing the plea of RTI activist and Magsaysay Award winner Arvind Kejriwal, seeking disclosure of the information on the ground that people had the right to know as to what was the grade assigned to an officer who was empanelled.

 

The court also set aside the order of the Central Information Commission which had held that information relating to appointment of secretaries in different ministries falls within the ambit of the transparency law.

 

'This court holds that the CIC was not justified in overruling the objection of the centre and directing the government and the DoPT (Department of Personnel and Training) to provide copies of the documents as sought by Kejriwal,' the judge said.

 

Setting aside the contention of the central government that the disclosure would amount to revealing details of an officer, the CIC had directed the department and the cabinet secretariat to disclose details pertaining to selection of officers for the posts of secretaries and additional secretaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

The News report in the above post is a clear misrepresentation by the reporter.

The Court order does not say any such thing.

It only says that CIC must consider the views of the "third party" before taking any such decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

As reported by IANS in newkerala.com on 29 March 2011:

Notice to government on plea for appointments in RTI ambit - World News, 177928

 

Notice to government on plea for appointments in RTI ambit

 

New Delhi, March 28 : The Delhi High Court Monday sought the central government's response on a petition challenging a single judge's ruling that information pertaining to the appointment of top bureaucrats cannot be revealed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

 

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna issued notice to the department of personnel and training (DOPT) and sought its reply by July 14 on an appeal filed by RTI activist and Magsaysay Award winner Arvind Kejriwal against the single judge's order, given in July 2010.

 

Kejriwal had requested the government to provide him the information on the ground that people had the right to know the grade assigned to an officer who was empanelled.

 

In his petition, he said that he was allowed to inspect files pertaining to appointment of secretaries, deputy secretaries in different ministries but he was not supplied with photocopies of the documents.

 

Kejriwal had approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) which had rejected the the government's argument that the disclosure would amount to invasion in the privacy of an officer, and June 12, 2008 asked the DOPT and the cabinet secretariat to disclose details pertaining to selection of officers for the posts of secretaries and additional secretaries.

 

However, the central government approached the Delhi High Court against the CIC's order.

 

The single judge had set aside the order and rejected Kejriwal's plea that information relating to appointment of secretaries in different ministries falls within the ambit of the transparency law and justice.

 

"This court holds that the CIC was not justified in overruling the objection of the centre and directing the government and the DoPT to provide copies of the documents as sought by Kejriwal," the single judge had said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

As reported by PTI in news.outlookindia.com on 14 July 2011:

http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?727780

 

HC Reserves Order on Arvind Kejriwal's Plea

 

The Delhi High Court today reserved its verdict on a plea against a single judge's order that information pertaining to selection process for appointment of top bureaucrats cannot be revealed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

 

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna reserved the order after hearing the arguments from the Centre as well as counsel of petitioner - civil rights activist Arvind Kejriwal.

 

RTI activist and Magsaysay Award winner Kejriwal has sought a direction to the government to provide him information on the ground that people had the right to know details such as what was the grade assigned to an officer who was empanelled.

 

Kejriwal had earlier moved the CIC saying that he was allowed to inspect files pertaining to appointment of secretaries, deputy secretaries in different ministries but he was not supplied with photocopies of the documents.

 

The CIC had rejected the government's argument that the disclosure would amount to invasion of privacy of an officer while directing the DoPT and the cabinet secretariat to disclose details pertaining to selection of officers for the posts of secretaries and additional secretaries on June 12, 2008.

 

Challenging the CIC findings, the Centre had moved the Delhi High Court and the judge had set aside the order and rejected Kejriwal's contention that information relating to appointment of secretaries in different ministries falls within the ambit of the transparency law.

 

"This court holds that the Central Information Commission (CIC) was not justified in overruling the objection of the Centre and directing the government and the DoPT (Department of Personnel and Training) to provide copies of the documents as sought by Kejriwal," the judge had said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Shree Vathsan
      By Shree Vathsan
      I had sought details of loan and copies of agreement entered with World Bank, JICA etc. of IT Expressway Chennai (created in partnership with Govt of TN) However the PIO has replied that they have moved out of world bank loan and taken loan from other banks details of which cannot be disclosed under 8(1) d of RTI Act citing "commercial confidence".
      However the IT Expressway is a public limited company having entered into agreement with Govt of TN and others for developing and maintaining a particular stretch of road.
       
      Kindly help me frame a good first appeal.
       
      Sent from my SM-J510FN using RTI INDIA mobile app
       
       
       
    • shrivar1212
      By shrivar1212
      Hello,
      I require help on co-operative issue. I had filed the RTI with the PIO, Dy registrar of co-op societies seeking information on affairs of society.
      The PIO has replied stating that the information I am seeking is available with co-operative society. My query is:
      1] Can PIO direct an applicant to private body for information?
      2] The society in question comes under the jurisdiction of the PIO, since PIO is public authority and co-operative society a private body, is it not duty of PIO to seek information from society and give it to me? How can PIO direct me back to society? This is RTI application, either I have to appeal or I have to forego. I cannot complaint against reply. So I want to approach FAA, under what grounds can I?
      3] What kind of violation PIO has committed by directing me back to private society? 
      4] Does co-operative society come under the purview of RTI ACt?
      Your views are appreciated. I am fighting lone battle with corrupt system. 
       

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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