Jump to content
karira

Denial of Promotion needs to be disclosed under Section 4(1)(d)

Recommended Posts

karira

In a recent order, IC Ansari has ruled that reasons for denial of promotion need to be disclosed to the affected employee under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act:

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/MA-03092008-08.pdf

 

Under section 4 (1) (d) of the Act, all the public authorities are required to provide reasons for administrative decisions taken by them. Accordingly, in compliance with the Appellate Authority’s order, the CPIO is directed to indicate the reasons for denial of promotion to the appellant within 15 working days from the date of issue of this decision, failing which penalty proceedings u/s 20 (1) of the Act, would be initiated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Another similar decision regarding disclosure of "recruitment and promotion" details of a public servant (the CPIO disallowed information under Sec 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j):

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/MA-03092008-04.pdf

 

The information relating to recruitment and promotion should not be treated

as confidential. Therefore, denial of such information is unjustified. However, the

information is to be furnished in the form in which it is available with the respondent.

The appellant is, therefore, advised to seek inspection of relevant records so as to

identify and specify the required information which should be furnished as per the

provisions of the Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
prbhat_gen

Recruitment, promotion issues non-confidential: CIC New Delhi, Sept 04: Public sector enterprises are liable to provide reasons for their administrative decisions on matters related to employees' promotion if any aggrieved person seeks for them, says Central Information Commission (CIC).

 

The ruling came on a plea filed by Assistant Manager (Civil) of Airports Authority Limited who had sought reasons for denial of promotion to him.

 

Central Information Commissioner M M Ansari said "under Section 4 (1) (d) of Act (that provides reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decision to the affected person), all the public authorities are required to provide reasons for administrative decisions taken by them...the CPIO of the Appellate Authority (AAI) is directed to indicate the reasons for denial of promotion to the appellant within 15 working days."

 

In another ruling related to the postal department, the CIC said the information on recruitment and promotion should not be treated as confidential.

 

"Therefore, denial of such information is unjustified. However, the information is to be furnished in the form in which it is available with the respondent," Ansari said in his order on a petition related to an Azamgarh resident.

 

The ruling said the appellant is, therefore, advised to seek inspection of relevant records so as to identify and specify the required information, which should be furnished under the provisions of the Act.

 

Zee News - CIC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
javedeqbal

I have been denied promotion .So I asked for the minutes of DPC and yearwise grades assigned by DPC. CPIO furnished the minutes and transferred the application to UPSC for the query related to yearwise grade assigned by DPC.The CPIO of UPSC has denied to furnish the yearwise grades assigned by DPC by citing the order No:CIC/WB/A/2008/00615 issued on 19/12/2008.Further he has refused to furnish the reasons recorded by DPC for declaring me UNFIT for promotion on the ground that information sought is not covered under the definition of information under RTI in terms of DOP&T OM No:01/07/2009-IR dated 01/06/2009. I want to file an Appeal against the decision of CPIO.Is there any favourable decisions by CIC ? Pl help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Javed,

 

Just use the search bar available at the top ofg the page and search for "dpc", you will get many useful threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • ganpat1956
      By ganpat1956
      A Supreme Court lawyer has moved the Central Information Commission seeking information on the procedure of the recruitment of class III and IV employees in the Delhi High Court after it was denied by its administration.
       
      Advocate Kamini Jaiswal approached the CIC contending that orders of the High Court Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer (First Appellate Authority) refusing to part away with the information was a violation of the Right to Information Act and also her Fundamental Rights.
       
      She alleged that information had been denied for erroneous reasons and none of the exemption available under Section 8 of the Act allows the authority not to part away with the information sought.
       
      The lawyer had filed the application before the Public Information Officier on September 22, 2006 seeking information regarding number of class III and class IV employees recruited by the Court from the year 1990 to 2006 and the procedure followed for their recruitment.
       
      The High Court PIO while denying the information held that information pertaining to those decisions which were taken administratively or quasi-judicially would be available only to the affected parties.
       
      The lawyer then approached Appellate Authority challenging the PIO order contending that the High Court (Right to information) Rules were inconsistent with the provision of the Right to Information Act and it should be held void.
       
      But the Appellate Authority refused to accept the contention of the lawyer and dismissed her appeal. Now the lawyer has moved Central Information Commission against this order.
       
      CIC moved on recruitment procedure of High Court .:. NewKerala.Com, India News Channel
    • ganpat1956
      By ganpat1956
      By David Rose
      Tuesday, 20 February 2007
       
      An MP has pledged to lead a Commons revolt over a controversial attempt to exempt Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act.
       
      A private members bill, introduced by former Tory chief whip David Maclean, would, if it becomes law, prevent journalists and others from using FoI requests to obtain information contained in MPs' correspondence with government departments and other public bodies.
       
      But Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, has vowed to oppose the bill when it comes before the Commons for its crucial Report Stage and Third Reading on 20 April.
       
      Maclean's Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill has already been given an unopposed Second Reading and has been approved by 19-member committee drawn from MPs in all parties.
       
      Opponents can attempt to block Private Members Bills at the Report Stage using filibustering tactics. To prevent Baker and other critics from talking out the two-clause bill, Maclean may be forced to muster 100 MPs in order to force a closure vote and secure the Commons' approval to be sent to the House of Lords.
       
      Maclean has been impressed by the amount of support he has secured. Among the MPs who spoke up for the Bill in committee were Labour MPs George Howarth (Knowsley North and Sefton) Kevan Jones, (North Durham) and Fraser Kemp (Houghton and Washington East).
       
      Liberal Democrat MP Nick Harvey (North Devon) also raised no objection.
      Harvey, chairman of the House of Commons Commission, told MPs: "Requests under the FoI Act are becoming increasingly intrusive, particularly on issues such as t he additional costs allowance. In that respect, they are getting into very personal realms - they are going behind the front door into Members' homes."
       
      While the Government insists the Bill must be decided on a free vote, Tony Wright, Labour chairman of the Commons Public Administration Committee, has accused the whips of collaborating to ensure the Bill gets approved.
      Constitutional Affairs minister Bridget Prentice has also indicated where her own sympathies lie.
       
      "We should not allow the 2000 Act to disrupt the vital relationship between and MP and his or her constituents, and the time has come to address the issue," she told MPs.
       
      Baker told Press Gazette: "The Government is backtracking on the FoI Act.
      "This is a throw back to the 1950s when Parliament was a private members' club.
       
      "If this is passed we will have the absurd position of exempting from the legislation those people who passed the law."
       
      Baker recently won a case before the Information Tribunal which forced the disclosure of more details of MPs' travel expenses.
       
      Press Gazette - UK Journalism News and Journalism Jobs

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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