No registered users viewing this page.
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
Bangalore, February 23, 2007
The wait is certainly agonizing for Vaishanavi Kasturi, a visually impaired student, as she knocks on the doors of the Indian Institute of Management-Bangalore to know why she could not make it despite her excellent performance in CAT 2006.
On Friday, Vaishanaviâ€™s father RK Kasturi spent several hours closeted with a team of officials from IIM-B, asking them why his daughter was not called for a group discussion and personal interview. Vaishanavi cleared the CAT with a percentile of 89.29, outdoing thousands of other candidates. She was certainly eligible to sit for the next round of tests â€” the group discussion and interview â€” what with the IIM-B setting a cut-off of 86.42 percentile for the disabled. But the call never came.
Disappointed, Vaishanaviâ€™s family filed a notice under the Right to Information Act, which got Kasturi the meeting with the school authorities.
At the end of the discussion, Kasturi still did not have an answer for his daughter. He told the Hindustan Times: â€œThey told us that she did not make it because others (in the category of applicants with physical disabilities) were graduates or had work experience, etc. We had a long meeting and discussed many things because we want to understand where we stand. Let us wait till Monday (February 26). We have to attend a hearing at the RTI Commissionerâ€™s office that day. The group discussions and interviews are scheduled for April. Let us see what happens on Monday.â€
For Vaishnavi â€” a sixth semester BCom student of a local college â€” the doors to IIM-B may not have opened for her but another prestigious institute, the MS Ramaiah Institute of Management, has offered her a free seat for a post-graduate diploma in management.
Vaishanavi, however, still hopes she will qualify for the Indian Institute of Management-Bangalore at the end of the hearing at the RTI Commissionerâ€™s office in the state capital on Monday.
IIM says no to top scorer : HindustanTimes.com
I had applied for correction in PAN Data Last year. I didn't get any response. In Income tax website it was showing that the status of the application is "under procces". I didnt kwow the exact status of my application and the customer service people are also not giving the reason for delay. So once again i applied in Dec. Now also i didnt receive the New card and the status of the application is "under procces".
Now what step should i take? Wait for some more time or can i apply for RTI? If so where i can do it? Currently i am staying in Bangalore.
New Delhi: A senior diplomat on Wednesday alleged gender bias in the External Affairs Ministry, claiming that had it not been so, there was no reason why she should have been ignored for the post of Foreign Secretary.
Senior diplomat Veena Sikri, a 1971 batch IFS officer, said she has moved the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), seeking access to files pertaining to appointment of Shivshankar Menon as Foreign Secretary under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
She alleged that as many as 16 officers were superseded in choosing Menon as the Foreign Secretary.
"I have made a final application to CIC Wajahat Habibullah, wanting to know on what grounds Menon, a 1972 batch officer, was appointed as Foreign Secretary, ignoring officers who were senior to him, including me."
"There are some objective, well-established criteria for the selection of Foreign Secretary. I deserve to know why I don't fit the bill," PTI quoted Sikri as saying.
Sikri, who had been posted as India's High Commissioner in Dhaka, returned to Delhi in November last year in protest against Menon's appointment.
Asked about her future plans, Sikri said she was awaiting a reply from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).
She said she has sought information such as the rules and principles followed by the government in the selection of Foreign Secretary, what was the process for the final selection of Menon for the post, the panels of officers drawn up for the position and the reasons why certain officers were superseded in the appointment.
"I have sought access to files that have to do with the appointment," she said.
"I feel there is a gender bias against me. Otherwise, there is no reason why I should have been ignored for the post. I have the necessary experience and a good record. And I have two years of service left," Sikri said.
Battle of babus hots up at MEA : India, External Affairs Ministry, Foreign Secretary, Veena Sikri, Right to Information (RTI) Act, CIC : IBNLive.com : CNN-IBN
Kolkata, April 2 (PTI): The full bench of the Central Information Commission will decide whether documents consulted by enquiry panels probing the mysterious disappearance of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose should be disclosed, Information Commissioner A N Tiwari has said.
Tiwari conveyed this recently to Mission Netaji, a Delhi-based organisation campaigning to access information on the disappearance of the icon of the freedom movement, while hearing its appeal in this regard.
Giving a "final chance" to the Union home ministry to come clear on the issue, Tiwari asked it to provide an adequate explanation from the ministerial level on why documents sought by Mission Netaji could not be made public.
All documents on the basis of which the two inquiry panels led by Shah Nawaz Khan (1956) and G D Khosla (1970-74) made their decisions have been kept secret by the government.
Tiwari's directive came close on the heels of Information Commissioner O P Kejriwal directing the external affairs ministry to provide Mission Netaji's Anuj Dhar copies of its correspondence with the Sovet Union and later Russia on Netaji's disappearance.
"If adequate explanations are not provided, the Commission will be compelled to direct the disclosure of all documents in question," Kejriwal said.
Last year, Home Minister Shivraj Patil announced in Parliament that investigations conducted by Khan and Khosla were more credible than that of Justice M K Mukherjee who headed another panel that probed Netaji's disappearance.
Following Patil's announcement, Mission Netaji's Sayantan Dasgupta filed a petition with the home ministry to seek copies of all documents examined by the Khan and Khosla panels.
"Our case has been that these enquiries made selective use of evidence to arrive at the conclusion to suit the government's view that Netaji died in Taipei," Dasgupta claimed.
In response, the home ministry refused to provide documents, taking recourse to secion 8 1(a) of the RTI Act, which exempts the release of information information which can "prejudicially affect sovereignty and integrity of India", "relations with a foreign state" or "lead to incitement of offence".
Dasgupta then filed a complaint with the CIC. In its first hearing in October last year, home ministry officials said they were not aware of the documents examined by the earlier panels as they, unlike the Mukherjee Commission, had not appended any list of exhibits.
Tiwari then directed Dasgupta to revise the original application to demand specific documents. Accordingly, Mission Netaji filed a revised petition with a list of 202 documents used as exhibits by the Khosla Commission in its arguments section.
At the latest hearing last week, home ministry officials were to appear with the papers but instead came with a secret note from Home Secretary V K Duggal, who has since retired.
Irked at the letter that reiterated the same arguments using Section 8 1(a), Tiwari said: "The issue is far too important to be decided in an ad hoc manner at the level of the home secretary. I am not prepared to allow an omnibus recourse to Section 8 1(a)."
The CIC assured the appellant that Indians had every right to have full information on their hero.
The Hindu News Update Service
02/21/2018 03:26 AM