Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Shrawan

      Bookmark your favourites   03/14/2018

      Bookmarks is an easy and convenient way to save and bookmark content that you want to find later: Want to save a long topic for later reading? Don't want to lose your spot in an interesting topic? Need to mark something for moderator review?   Curious about other people's favorite bookmarks?   Bookmarks at RTI INDIA saves you the hassle of rummaging through multiple pages, searching, and navigating to find that one post you wanted to later review. With one click, you can save any post as a bookmark.  It offers a convenient way to compile, store, and organize your most favorite posts from around the community into your own set of bookmarks. This is especially helpful for those helping others, so they can refer those important posts, blog, page, thread and post it in the new thread they are replying. FEATURES Bookmarks offers the following features: Public Bookmarks - Public bookmarks are viewable by other members and guests on a tab on the member's profile page.   Private Bookmarks - Private bookmarks are viewed only by yourself.  This is perfect for the posts you secretly love to return to!   Unlimited Bookmarks - Let your users save as many bookmarks as they want!   Notifications - The content creator can get a notification when somebody bookmarks his content Bookmarks works with the following content items: Topic Posts Blog Entries Blog Comments Download Files Download Comments Gallery Images Gallery Comments Gallery Albums New Articles FAST & FRIENDLY Bookmarks is designed to be super fast and user-friendly.  You can add or remove the bookmark, the bookmark is instantly removed without reloading the page - giving an instant and seamless transition to you. Some Screenshots

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ias'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Request for Community Support
    • Ask for RTI Support
    • Post your RTI Success here
    • Ask for Non RTI Support
  • Connect with Community
    • Discussions on RTI
    • Off Topic
  • Learn about RTI
    • RTI Act Circulars
    • RTI Appeals decisions
  • Website News & Support
    • Announcements
    • RTI in Media
  • Read RTI News & Stories


  • Uncategorized
  • Section 18 (1)
  • Section 11
  • For Common Man
  • Section 16
  • Section 2(h)
  • Section 8 (1)(j)
  • Simplified RTI
  • Government Employee and RTI
  • RTI Act 2005
  • Success Stories
  • Exempt Organisation
  • DG IT
  • Section 8 (1) (e)
  • Section 2 (h) (d) (i)
  • Supreme Court Decisions
  • Section 2 (j) (i)
  • Section 2
  • Section 8
  • Section 20
  • Section 19
  • SIC Punjab
  • High Court Decisions
  • Section 9
  • Section 24
  • DoPT
  • RTI Awareness
  • Section 6 (3)
  • Section 6
  • Section 2 (f)
  • Opinion
  • Department of Posts
  • Ministry of Railways
  • Departments
  • Ministry of Home Affairs
  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs
  • Ministry of Law & Justice
  • Government of NCT of Delhi
  • Delhi Police
  • Ministry of Human Resource Development
  • Staff Selection Commission
  • Court Decisions
  • CIC Decisions
  • Activism
  • Section 25
  • University
  • Section 7
  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Section 3
  • RTI Discussions
  • Section 19 (8) (b)
  • Section (1) (d)
  • Section 8 (1) (d)
  • DIrectorate of Education
  • Govt of NCT of Delhi
  • Cooperative Housing Society
  • RTI for School
  • Member RTI
  • Municipal Corporation
  • Ministry of Defence


  • RTI Act


  • News


  • Quotes


  • RTI Directory
  • Important Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts, Circulars & Decisions


  • Karira Blog
  • J.P.Shah
  • Dhirendra Prasad Blog
  • Sunil Ahya Blog
  • Raveena O Blog
  • A blog by CHITTABARIK
  • Yogi M. P. Singh Blog
  • Common Man Insights
  • faizanraza717's Blog
  • pankaj bhalla's Blog
  • WalterShannon's Blog
  • Asha Kanta Sharma


There are no results to display.

Found 9 results

  1. Sir , I want to know how much amount we paid to employee who are responsible to avoid financial crime against India gov . In the end who is responsible for loss to the nation Is any IAS,IPS,Polytical leader. Who will take responsibility for this type of crime.Is any act to punish that person. Lokpall bill can help to stop large amount type financial crime in India.
  2. Information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC which will not be in public interest. The Supreme Court has held that raw and scaled marks awarded to candidates in Civil Services (Prelims) examination cannot be revealed under the Right to Information Act and set aside the Delhi high court order asking UPSC to disclose the marks. The Commission contended that the corrections made in the answer book would likely arouse doubt and perhaps even suspicion in the candidate’s mind and this would not only breed grievances, but would likely lead to litigation.
  3. Social activist and whistleblower Ganesh S Koundiny on Tuesday claimed that IAS officer DK Ravi, who died in mysterious circumstances, was planning raids on some big developers to unearth commercial tax evasion. Read at: Deceased IAS officer DK Ravi was planning raids on big developers, RTI query reveals | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis
  4. A certificate to develop Raj Bhawan

    As reported by Sukhbir Siwach at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on June 2, 2010 CHANDIGARH: An appreciation letter for being the principal secretary to the chief minister. Another, for being secretary to the governor. Yet another for “... development of Haryana Raj Bhawan”. That’s what an RTI application, filed by TOI, revealed — most of the 46 IAS officers of the Haryana cadre who got letters of appreciation from the state government, all sanctioned by the chief ministers themselves, do not have strong reasons for being awarded these letters. The reasons mentioned for this much sought after certificate range from doing “appreciable work” as CM’s principal secretary or secretary to the governor or simply as a sub-divisional officer. Though the competency of these officers is not in doubt, the RTI information reveals how appreciation letters are doled out without any clear justification though government rules say “competent authorities should make recommendation in clear terms and the work proposed for commendation should be clearly indicated.” But, consider this: A top IAS officer, ML Tayal, at present member, Competition Commission of India, got appreciation letters for four consecutive years between 2005 and 2009. The reason stated was “appreciable work as principal secretary to the chief minister.” The recommendation was made by chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda himself. Another officer, Vijay Vardhan, received three letters of appreciation for being “secretary to the governor” from 2001 to 2006. His letters were recommended by then governor Babu Parmanand. An appreciation letter was given out in 2006, for “appreciable work as SDM, Gohana” to Ajit Balaji Joshi, also sanctioned by the CM. Additional principal secretary to the CM KK Khandelwal has got letters six times, his achievements have been spelt out only twice. “It’s not logical to issue appreciation letters without mentioning outstanding work,” says Harsh Mander, the newly-appointed member to the National Advisory Council. Mander, who had quit the IAS and became a voice against communalism during the Gujarat riots of 2002, feels: “Public servants are here to serve and there should be strong reasons for any commendable certificate awarded to them.” In some cases, the words have been changed to mention “excellent” or “commendable” work or “all round development.” Again, while V. Umashankar was awarded the certificate in 2001-02 “for performing and achieving higher parameter”, IAS officer RK Khullar got one in 2000 –01 “for discharging multifarious duties.” Rules framed in 1965 by the government of India states that appreciation letters are issued to officers on the basis of their confidential report. The rules specify that “the work proposed for commendation should be clearly indicated.” “Rules say recommendation certificates should be issued against specific work,” says former Haryana chief secretary LM Goyal.
  5. As reported at indianexpress.com on Dec 15, 2009 Chandigarh : Information regarding assets of Punjab IAS officers is not exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act, as annual property returns submitted by the government employees are in public domain, ordered State Information Commissioner Lt Gen P K Grover (Retd). He noted that the decision should be considered as a step to contain corruption in government offices, since such disclosures may reveal assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The order came following a February 2009 application filed by Convener of RTI Users, H C Arora, seeking information pertaining to property returns of IAS officers of the state. He had filed an appeal with the first appellate authority on April 1, after his request was declined. On not getting a suitable response, he moved the State Information Commission on September 30, 2009. The respondent, PIO of the Department of Personnel (IAS Branch), Punjab Civil Secretariat, had denied the information, stating that it would adversely affect the “working and morale” of the officers, as the disclosure would lead to “unnecessary controversy”, and state’s interest would suffer. Moreover, the disclosure would serve no public interest. The applicant said the property returns were submitted by the IAS officers under Rule 16 (2) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, and thus, “the information being obligatory/involuntary must be disclosed in public interest”. He also submitted a copy of the Karnataka High Court order pertaining to disclosure of assets by government servants. Lt Gen Grover said, “All IAS officers have to disclose their and their family members’ assets as per Rule 16 (2) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Therefore, such information is not exempted from disclosure.” He directed the respondent to provide copies of property returns of the specified IAS officers by December 24, exempting those officers who have retired. Notably, in an earlier appeal by Arora, the information commission had directed the PIO in the office of Punjab DGP to provide details of property returns of all the IPS officers serving in Punjab, except those retired or on the Central deputation. “The government is, however, seeking adjournments in the case on one pretext or the other, and the order is yet to be complied with,” said Arora. Source: ‘Assets of IAS officers can be disclosed under RTI Act’
  6. As reported by Jeeva at timesofindia.indiatimes.com 28 October 2009 CHENNAI: With the debate about the disclosure of assets by high court and Supreme Court judges still on, the state government in Tamil Nadu has refused to disclose property details pertaining to IAS and IPS officials under the Right To Information (RTI) Act. While the Secretariat has refused to permit an RTI activist to inspect property statements submitted by IAS officials, including the chief secretary and the home secretary, the office of the director general of police (DGP) has failed to disclose property details of police officials even a month after the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission's directive to do so. The commission had issued the directive on September 15 to the public information officer at the DGP office, to provide details to V Gopalakrishnan, a resident of K K Nagar, who had filed an RTI application in January this year. The applicant had sought details about police officials, from sub-inspector to IPS officers, who had sought permission from government to buy immovable property from 2006 to 2008. The DGP office, in its reply given in April, categorically refused to provide the details, stating that they were exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. Challenging the refusal, the applicant moved the state commission and obtained an order in his favour. In the case of disclosure of property details relating to IAS officials, the public department in the Secretariat, in its reply to the RTI application filed by V Madhav of Porur in February this year, said that the information sought was personal information such as income-tax returns and, hence, could not be inspected under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act as it would amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individuals'. Madhav wanted to inspect the asset disclosure statements submitted by the chief secretary, home secretary and secretaries of eight other departments, including revenue, industries and the PWD. The applicant filed an appeal with the state commission, saying that disclosure of property details of government servants could not be considered invasion of privacy when MLAs, MPs and high court and even Surpreme Court judges disclosed assets. "Making public the asset disclosure statements of government servants would check accumulation of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. Besides, Section 8(1)(j) of the Act itself says that information cannot be denied to citizens if the same cannot be denied to Parliament or a state legislature,'' Madhav argued in his submission before the commission. After hearing the case, the commission has now reserved its orders Source: Secretariat, DGP's office refuse to disclose property details - Chennai - City - The Times of India
  7. Not just a pebble

    Op-Ed by Dilip Cherian at The Asian Age on 19 July, 2009 Jul 19 : Wily netas can be made to declare details of their assets at election time, so why not my favourite tribesmen at promotion time? Even as the Central Information Commission (CIC) is after judges to get them to declare their assets, a lawyer in Punjab has turned the Right to Information (RTI) heat on Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS) officers in the state. But the lawyer's query, filed under the RTI Act, has got the state personnel department all worked up. The application only seeks to know at the start whether IAS and IPS officers are required to submit their statement of assets periodically to the government. If, yes, the applicant has sought the tax return statements submitted by babus initially at the time of joining service. So far the department has refused to share details of the assets owned by babus, although it admitted that babus submit a statement of assets every year. Will tax records match these, or will both be works of artifice is the question. According to sources, the lawyer has now gone a step further and filed an application with the first appellate authority of the personnel department, which has sent a letter to the secretary, department of information and technology, seeking advice on the appeal. Meanwhile, other advocates are also of the opinion that IAS and IPS officers cannot continue withholding details of their assets as this information is not strictly personal. Who'll prevail, is what we and my favourite tribesmen would really like to know. Now we know why there are serious attempts by babus to get the RTI diluted. The unholy alliance of babus, judges and politicians could prove too mighty for the masses to resist. Source: The Asian Age - Enjoy the difference
  8. Wealth of IAS is covered under RTI Reported in Gujarat Global News Network, Ahmedabad, 2008-06-11 15:58:39 In a significant decision the Gujarat Information Commission has allowed access to annual property returns (APRs) of government officers to any citizen under the Right to Information (RTI) act. The ruling came after activist Harinesh Pandya sought details under the RTI of property of IAS officer Rajiv Gupta. Pandya wanted to know the details of Gupta's property since he assumed office. He had also sought to know the source of income for acquiring the property and whether any of property was sold. The Public Information Officer had refused to disclose the details on the ground that the information was available with them in "fiduciary relationship" and there was no larger public interest warranting disclosure. Pandya filed appeal before the GAD and the appellate authority too upheld the PIO's decision. However the GIC noted that CIC's decisions on property disclosure were to bring transparency. But it directed the GAD to inform Gupta that the details of his property are being disclosed and to hear him. Wealth of IAS is covered under RTI Here's the text of the GIC's landmark order http://gic.guj.nic.in/Decisions/Appeal%2088-7-8(Order).pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Decision / Order. (1) The non-disclosure of Annual Property Returns of the officers/employees to the citizens under the Right to Information Act, 2005 under section 8(1)(e) is untenable. (2) However, having regard to the situation that, the said property returns may contain some part of personal information, in the present matter, the respondent No.1 should, within five days from the receipt of this order give a written notice to the concerned officer whose information has been sought, that under the directions of this Commission, he intends to disclose the information and should invite the concerned officer to make his submissions in writing or orally and the respondent No.1 shall, in his decision, take into account his submissions. The respondent No.1 should give his decision within forty days from the receipt of this order. (3) As regards information sought as point Nos. (2) & (5) of the appellant’s application, the respondent No. 1 should provide partial information, which even under the GAD (RTI Cell)’s Circular dated 14-11-2005 can be disclosed. Regarding the information, which cannot be provided, as the Commission has held that section 8(1)(e) would not be applicable, if the respondent No.1 is of the opinion that any other provision in
  9. 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

Our Moderators

karira karira Super Moderator
ganpat1956 ganpat1956 Super Moderator
ambrish.p ambrish.p Moderators
Sunil Ahya Sunil Ahya Moderators
jps50 jps50 Moderators

About Us

RTI INDIA established in the year 2006, attracts a broad audience of citizens, experts, professionals and Government Officers interested in the latest development in the field of Right to Information. We also boast an active community focused on helping citizens to File RTI, First Appeal and Second Appeals. Our download section contains many sample RTI forms for everybody to use.

Social Links


Important Information

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