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

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'promotion issues'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Request for Community Support
  • Connect with Community
  • Learn about RTI
  • Website News & Support
  • Read RTI News & Stories
  • RTI Act Critics's RTI Act Critics Topics
  • Fans of RTI India's Fans of RTI India Topics
  • Insurance Consumer's Insurance Consumer Topics
  • Activists of Transparency and Accountability's Activists of Transparency and Accountability Topics
  • Issues with BWSSB's Issues with BWSSB Topics
  • Law+Order-Bangalore-32's Law+Order-Bangalore-32 Topics
  • Issues With Electricity Board's Issues With Electricity Board Topics
  • RTI Activists's RTI Activists Topics
  • YOGA's YOGA Topics
  • help each other's help each other Topics
  • forest and wild life's forest and wild life Topics
  • Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C.'s Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C. Topics
  • RTI Activist+Politics's RTI Activist+Politics Topics
  • hostels and lodging places's hostels and lodging places Topics
  • RTI Activists in Rajasthan.'s RTI Activists in Rajasthan. Topics
  • RTI info warriors in Haryana's RTI info warriors in Haryana Topics
  • DisABILITY Rights and RTI's DisABILITY Rights and RTI Topics
  • Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI.'s Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI. Topics
  • Eco club's Eco club Topics
  • Self Employment in Sport's Self Employment in Sport Topics
  • RTI related to land issue's RTI related to land issue Topics
  • Open SourceTechnology support to RTI's Open SourceTechnology support to RTI Topics
  • TRAP group's TRAP group Topics
  • Odisha RTI Activists's Odisha RTI Activists Topics
  • right to information activists's right to information activists Topics
  • Mumbai's Mumbai Topics
  • RTI ACTIVISTS FROM KARNATAKA's RTI ACTIVISTS FROM KARNATAKA Topics
  • Chartered Accountants's Chartered Accountants Topics
  • ngosamachar's ngosamachar Topics
  • Growing INDIA's Growing INDIA Topics
  • we are all friends.'s we are all friends. Topics
  • RTI for Government employees's RTI for Government employees Topics
  • Dhanus - Pending Salaries's Dhanus - Pending Salaries Topics
  • Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors's Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Topics
  • Mahamumbai's Mahamumbai Topics
  • FREE LEGAL HELP AND SUGGESTIONS's FREE LEGAL HELP AND SUGGESTIONS Topics
  • M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech's M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech Topics
  • Corruption's Corruption Topics
  • ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION's ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Topics
  • MAHARASHTRA- ADVOCATE/LAWYERS's MAHARASHTRA- ADVOCATE/LAWYERS Topics
  • INDIAN WOMEN- LAWYERS /ADVOCATES's INDIAN WOMEN- LAWYERS /ADVOCATES Topics
  • minority engineering colleges in maharashtra's minority engineering colleges in maharashtra Topics
  • AAKANKSHA's AAKANKSHA Topics
  • RTI AGAINST INDIAN AIR FORCE MALPRACTISE's RTI AGAINST INDIAN AIR FORCE MALPRACTISE Topics
  • RiGhTs's RiGhTs Topics
  • ram's ram Topics
  • JVG DUPED CUST.'s JVG DUPED CUST. Topics
  • anti corrupt police's anti corrupt police Topics
  • Save Girl in Punjab's Save Girl in Punjab Topics
  • Rent Apartment in US's Rent Apartment in US Topics
  • RTI Kerala's RTI Kerala Topics
  • maharashtra's maharashtra Topics
  • Right Way Of India(RTI)'s Right Way Of India(RTI) Topics
  • Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India's Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India Topics
  • Navi Mumbai's Navi Mumbai Topics
  • electricity curruption in up's electricity curruption in up Topics
  • SHARE n STOCKS trading's SHARE n STOCKS trading Topics
  • WEWANTJUSTICE's WEWANTJUSTICE Topics
  • Civil Engineers-CAD's Civil Engineers-CAD Topics
  • Nitin Aggarwal's Nitin Aggarwal Topics
  • MEWAT EDUCATION AWARENESS's MEWAT EDUCATION AWARENESS Topics
  • ex-serviceman activities's ex-serviceman activities Topics
  • SSCC's SSCC Topics
  • Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates's Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates Topics
  • jharkhand RTI activist group's jharkhand RTI activist group Topics
  • Suhail's Suhail Topics
  • govt.servant's govt.servant Topics
  • RTI Uttar pradesh's RTI Uttar pradesh Topics
  • anti-corruption team's anti-corruption team Topics
  • Manaism's Manaism Topics
  • Insurance's Insurance Topics
  • sonitpur datri sewa samity's sonitpur datri sewa samity Topics
  • indian youth manch's indian youth manch Topics
  • HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies's HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies Topics
  • youth's youth Topics
  • aastha's aastha Topics
  • RTI for Citizens's RTI for Citizens Topics
  • ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS OF INDIA's ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS OF INDIA Topics
  • learn always's learn always Topics
  • R.T.I.'s R.T.I. Topics
  • Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana's Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana Topics
  • Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna's Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna Topics
  • MBA, business and new entrepreneur.....'s MBA, business and new entrepreneur..... Topics
  • students seeking help's students seeking help Topics
  • UN-DO CORRUPTION's UN-DO CORRUPTION Topics
  • RTI Corporate's RTI Corporate Topics
  • Electrical group's Electrical group Topics
  • V4LRights's V4LRights Topics
  • Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool's Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool Topics
  • Gaming's Gaming Topics
  • WE Born to help's WE Born to help Topics
  • help the elderly citizen's help the elderly citizen Topics
  • NATIONAL ISSUE's NATIONAL ISSUE Topics
  • Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association's Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association Topics
  • Corruption free Country's Corruption free Country Topics
  • surajyam's surajyam Topics
  • kanpurvictims's kanpurvictims Topics
  • Railway Group A Services's Railway Group A Services Topics
  • RTI BALLIA's RTI BALLIA Topics
  • Encroachment of public property by private giants's Encroachment of public property by private giants Topics
  • Case Status - Anti Corruption's Case Status - Anti Corruption Topics
  • RTI ACTIVISTS FROM MEERUT's RTI ACTIVISTS FROM MEERUT Topics
  • Aam Aadmi (The Common Man)'s Aam Aadmi (The Common Man) Topics
  • Court Marriage in Punjab's Court Marriage in Punjab Topics
  • ALL's ALL Topics
  • Youth India Social Group (YISG)'s Youth India Social Group (YISG) Topics
  • ye kya fandda h's ye kya fandda h Topics
  • mindset's mindset Topics
  • anti corruption's anti corruption Topics
  • activism's activism Topics
  • common's common Topics
  • state group's state group Topics
  • social help group's social help group Topics
  • landlords of uttar pradesh's landlords of uttar pradesh Topics
  • Concern Citizens Forum for India's Concern Citizens Forum for India Topics
  • edusystem's edusystem Topics
  • Ratna Jyoti's Ratna Jyoti Topics
  • development in indian village's development in indian village Topics
  • technovision's technovision Topics
  • Mighty India's Mighty India Topics
  • Against Corporate Fraud's Against Corporate Fraud Topics
  • Stop crime's Stop crime Topics
  • PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION.'s PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION. Topics
  • NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti's NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Topics
  • Authenticated Public Plateform's Authenticated Public Plateform Topics
  • shalin's shalin Topics
  • terminater's terminater Topics
  • RTI Wind Energy's RTI Wind Energy Topics
  • AMICE (INDIA)'s AMICE (INDIA) Topics
  • HELPING HAND !'s HELPING HAND ! Topics
  • Go..................?'s Go..................? Topics
  • Co-Op Housing Society's Co-Op Housing Society Topics
  • we are equal's we are equal Topics
  • Phoenix Deals's Phoenix Deals Topics
  • AHMEDABAD ACTIVISTS's AHMEDABAD ACTIVISTS Topics
  • Theft Cases in chandigarh's Theft Cases in chandigarh Topics
  • Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits's Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits Topics
  • Solar Systems's Solar Systems Topics
  • Get aware about ur Education and related rights's Get aware about ur Education and related rights Topics
  • Save Mumbai's Save Mumbai Topics
  • Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board's Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board Topics
  • ashayen's ashayen Topics
  • unemployment's unemployment Topics
  • Employee Solution's Employee Solution Topics
  • is kanpur university against sc/st's is kanpur university against sc/st Topics
  • URBAN PLANNER PROFESSIONAL's URBAN PLANNER PROFESSIONAL Topics
  • RTI HELP INDIA's RTI HELP INDIA Topics
  • prayatna's prayatna Topics
  • Parking woes's Parking woes Topics
  • Helping RTI INDIA web development's Helping RTI INDIA web development Topics

Categories

  • 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)
  • BSNL & MTNL
  • 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

Categories

  • RTI Act

Categories

  • News

Categories

  • Quotes

Categories

  • RTI Videos

Categories

  • RTI Directory
  • Important RTI Decisions
  • Other Important Court Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts & Circulars

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Found 24 results

  1. The Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Youth Affairs and Sports Shri Sarbananda Sonowal has said that in accordance with the provisions of the National Sports Development Code of India (NSDCI), the recognised National Sports Federations are required to furnish certain documents namely, annual audited accounts, annual report, details of National/International championships including calendar of events, funds received from other sources etc. to the Ministry every year for annual renewal of their recognition from the Government. Also, Government has declared the NSFs receiving grant of Rs.10.00 lakh or more in a year as Public Authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. Although, the NSFs have been furnishing information to this Ministry, but it has been noticed that the same is not available on the website of many NSFs and hence is not available to general public and stakeholders. Therefore, in order to reduce the paper work of NSFs while making the information available to stakeholders and ensure greater transparency, all National Sports Federations (NSFs) & Indian Olympic Association (IOA) have been asked by the Ministry to make available, on their websites, information regarding their functioning, details of elections, annual audited accounts, constitution of their organizations, details of national championships with their calendar of events, details of international events held in India and abroad, list of I-Cards issued to athletes, action taken for prevention of age fraud and dope free sports in compliance to WADA/NADA Code, funds received from various sources including private sponsors, public sector undertakings, State Governments, etc. Read at: Disclosure of Sports development and promotion activities by IOA and NSFs | Business Standard News
  2. Hello, I am Mukesh. I have observed that CIL(Coal India Limited) in executing routine transfer promotions they do not follow any consistent guidelines. At one place they issue orders for promotion with transfer of most of their executives and then most of them are retained at their place of posting and promotion is made effective while in case of only a very few executives the promotion is cancelled on the ground of staying of transfer. This is in gross violation of natural justice and so I wish to know through RTI Act, from CIL authority about the norms and rules followed in making transfer promotion orders.Also I wish to know the number of executives in different disciplines promoted and retained at the same place of posting and the number of executives on promotion were retained at the same place of posting but their promotion was cancelled in the year 2012 and then 2013. Also what was the number of Medical Executives who were denied promotion in comparison to Executives of other disciplines?
  3. sham081989

    reservation in promotion p/h

    Hello, is the p/h technician able to reservation law or only A & B group
  4. Am UMA CHANDRU S V , Working in Southern Railway , Madurai Division . I got promotion from JE/Sig/MDU to SSE/SIG/MDU .in Cadre Restructuring 2013. In my pay fixation order my junior getting more pay than me, i want to know whether am eligible for stepping of pay in Railway.Now am working in DMRC/Kochin on Deputation w.e.f.11.03.2014. I got promotion w.e.f 01.11.2013.
  5. Shrawan Pathak has just uploaded RTI INDIA Android Mobile Application Video Promotion! You can use our RTI INDIA Android Mobile from [url="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vbulletin.build_89
  6. Hello, I m working in a gov't undertaking and have been on the same post for the last 14 years. I m the only employee who has been denied promotion for that long. In fact my juniors are now 2 scales above me. I sought reasons pertaining delay in my promotion from our management but there is no response. In fact to harass me further they sometime delay my salary and perks also. Being lady its all the more difficult...... can RTI help me in this regard ? Thank u.
  7. Hello, I was an affected party in DPC proceedings conducted for the review to higher grade promotion as on 01-07-1998. I was screened out by the screening committee of DPC from attending the interview for promotion as on 01-07-1998. There were around 20 candidates who were screened in by DPC for attending this interview. Out of these 20 candidates screened in, some candidates were unlawfully screened in by DPC as per my knowledge. I was a candidate to be screened in as per my ACR ratings. But screening committee had screened out me and I was an affected party in DPC proceedings. My fundamental right to be considered for review [article 16(1)] is violated. In this background, when I sought RTI certified copies of screening minutes of the review as on the said date 01-07-1998, CPIO supplied copies of screening minutes by severing all the names of candidates including other details like who were all screened in and who were all screened out except my name and who were all to be considered for the review after a period of 6 months. Since ACR ratings of candidates are not indicated in these screening minutes, the question of severing ACR ratings does not arise. CPIO cited a CIC judgment http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2013_002197_SH_M_143035.pdf for severing all the said details of other candidates in this minutes. This CIC judgment relies a Delhi HC judgment Thdc India Ltd vs R.K.Raturi on 8 July, 2014 Hence expert members may kindly advise me whether the stand of CPIO to sever all details of other candidates in the minutes is in order? Actually if I am unable to see the details of other candidates in this minutes, there is no transparency in this minutes and I could not identify those ineligible candidates who got screened in. [Any CIC judgment /HC judgment for supplying screening minutes of DPC without severing such details if available may please be attached]
  8. Dear sir I want to take M.Sc. course from IASE deemed university churu rajasthan . Is the degree valid from there is valid in central govt. employee for promotion. The same question is for vinayak mission university salem tamilnadu . please write me asap. -Rakesh
  9. Is there any rule which specifies that a central government servant must be given certain promotion prospects i.e he should get atleast say X number of promotions if vacancy exists. I want to know specifically for a person joining in supervisory cadre in central govt. Can i get this info by RTI & whom to contact Sent from RTI INDIA Mobile App
  10. I was denied a promotion due to changes in the promotion policy of the Army ie it switched from a system of value judgement to that of quantification. In this new policy weightage is given to each achievement of an individual. Now I wish to know the logic/ reason for allotting a particular weightage to a particular achievement. How do I frame my RTI query? Also, can the PIO deny me this information citing defence and security of the country even though promotions and security of the country are unrelated? Lastly, if providing written information is prejudicial to national security than can I opt for inspection of the file notings vide which the policy was perused and approved? I will be grateful if early help is extended.
  11. On 08.06.2009, in the case of Maya Shanker Prabhaty v. ITO, the CIC had reserved its decision on disclosure of evaluated answer sheets of departmental examination (for promotion) on the basis of contention of CPIO that the matter was still pending with Apex Court (Pritam Rooz case) involving a serious question of law. Now, similarly another friend has been denied copy of his evaluated answer sheet of departmental examination and he has to file an appeal before CIC very soon and I do not think it is going to help in the wake of the decision of CIC as above; which I feel is erroneous in so far as merely a stay in a particular case involving CBSE examination might not be construed worthy to defer a decision regarding a promotional departmental examination which has clearly been held as a public document by the Hon'ble Caclutta High Court. However, could you please tell me the fate of Pritam Rooz v. Calcutta University at Supreme Court which had granted a stay in that case? And any other citation to make the appeal before CIC strong?
  12. I presume that all public sector banks have devised following policies for smooth functioning of their banks 1. Man Power policy to decide number of staff to be posted in a branch or an administrative office 2. Categorisation of Branch, Region and Zone as per business of the branch or region or zone 3. Scale of Officers and their numbers to be posted as Branch head or supporting officer at different category of branches or administrative offices 4. Transfer policy and promotion policy for different scale of officers. 5. What are irregularities or serious charges against an officers due to which an officer can be prevented from taking part in promotion or for posting at rural areas or at critical branch 6. When an officer cannot be promoted only due to less number of vacancies, justification for not releasing increment or keeping such officer under stagnation for three years or six years or more. Under what circumstances an officer can be transferred to other state , other zone and under what circumstances can an officer be exempted from normal transfer policy or exempted from inter state transfers or inter zone transfers. Under what circumstances policy can be violated must be past of such policies I would like to seek information in attached for format from each bank to assess and ascertain the extent upto which a bank has violated the existing policies and resorted to whimsical transfers and arbitrary promotion or recruited officers in higher scales at the cost of existing senior and experienced officers only to earn bribe or to give favour officers of their choice or on recommendation from internal or external VIPs. Such information will help to judge whether the existing policy of interview or group discussion or even written test based promotion policy has helped in growth of bank , in stopping rise in growth of bad assets and to provide safety to banks. Absolute and serious analysis of consequences of existing policy of flattery and bribery will be able to speak whether promotions of officers taking place in public sector banks for last one or two decades based on policy of so called merit channel or super merit channel to promote an officer from one scale to to other is used by top ranked officer for the growth of bank or for growth of individual wealth or to serve the vested interest of members of such interview panels and assessing committee of a few officers. It is now necessary to know the real reason for spurt in Volume of Non Performing Assets in government banks.It is now necessary to assess the utility of so called merit and fast track promotion process prevalent in various banks in various shapes which enable top ranked officers to inculcate and perpetuate policy of flattery and bribery at the cost of health of banks and that of future of officers devotedly serving the bank for a decade or two or three. It is therefore necessary that some officers in all banks seek information in attached formats from their bank and submit to a committee formed by some talented officers to decide the merit and demerit of existing policies and devise seniority based transparent policy for promotion and transfer. xxx@yyy.zzz - Deleted email id - posting against forum rules[/color][/b]
  13. Hi, One of my relative is working as Telephone Operator for a goverment establishment since 1980 and till date she hasn't seen a promotion. She is going to retire next year. As per her departmental circullar all employees become eligible for promotion after 5 years for service. The next levels are Monitor and Sr. Monitor and both the posts in the deparment after vacant for years. Suprisingly no one in her department was ever promoted. Since the deparment is understaffed, they most of the time end up doing double shifts in a day. Does anyone have an RTI format for such scenario? Any assistance will be much appreciated.
  14. Dear members I invite the comments from you all regarding the following;- (1). An officer issue a memo to an employee( just before promotion). (2). The employee replies to memo adequetly. (3). The officer reports that employee has given 'irrelavant reply' to memo and promotion commitee considers it and promotion denied. (4). The employee files RTI application seeking the information as 'what is the irrelevant content or matrial in the reply given in response to that memo being issued, be furnished to me' The clarification required is what the employee asked under RTI is it a quetion or information. Please give your valuable opinion/comments
  15. Hi all, I had joined my company as JET(E&M) on 31.03.1987 with a training period of one year, after which I became E2 as on 31.03.1987. But since I was posted in a different department right from the day one, due to shortage of officers in that department, I had to request for formally changing my cadre to the new discipline (MM),which was done in 1988. During the process of this cadre change, my deemed date of entry was wrongly fixed as 11.07.1987 in place of 31.03.1987 for some unknown reason, which resulted in delay in my promotion to E3 grade by 1-1/2 years. I have been struggling to get a correction in my deemed date of entry in E2 grade since last 20 years. As a result I have lost seniority by 25 positions and last year I was not considered for promotion, where as all but 4 of my juniors have got promoted due to limitation of vacancies in the E7 grade. I have decided to move to the court to seek justice, but before that I want to get certain information about the various notings and recommenddations done in my case. An RTI application has been prepared and is attached. Some one kindly help to rectify it and suggest the best way so that I get all the iformation. I am also enclosing a copy of the last representation for iformation of all Thanks in advance. APPLICATION FORM UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005.doc REPRESENTATION FOR RESTORATION OF SENIORITY-Final_20032010.doc MKV_REPRESENTATION_ChronologicalStatus.pdf
  16. Hi Friends, My mother works in BSNL and recently when she was due for a promotion as a senior post fell vacant, the promotion was actually given to someone junior to her. My questions are: 1. Can seniority be overlooked in promotion in BSNL? 2. What help can i get using RTI? What questions should I be asking? 3. Is there a legal option available? If yes what is it? 4. Is is possible to get a stay on the promotion of the other person? From where? Thanks, Pawan
  17. 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.
  18. Hello I have more than 10 years experience in a Government medical college as a lecturer. However, neither departmental promotions have taken place nor MPSC interview for the post of Associate Professor have taken place till Sep 2009. So naturally I did not get promoted to the post of Assoc Prof all these years, which actually I could have got after serving as lecturer for so long. My question is : Can I ask for promotion to the post of Professor in a private Medical college? Would the 10 + years of my long tenure of lecturership be considered for professor, since I never was given a chance to apply for Assoc Prof post by the system ? I have many publications to my credit. So that fulfils the second criteria of eligibility for post of Prof too. However, I have been a co author for some publications. So will they too be considered as my publications ? Please guide
  19. This is to know whether one can get or seek information regarding appointment or promotion of a Director/Officer of an organisation using RTI application ? Can certified copies of the file notings of concerning file related with appointment or promotion be sought ?Does it involve any third party issue ? Is it mendatory to disclose the purpose of obtaining this information ?(However the purpose is to confirm the unlawful appointment)
  20. As a direct consequence of RTI Act 2005 and various orders of the CIC, Coal India Limited has started uploading all DPC proceedings on its website. http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AT-23102008-03.pdf Respondents have replied that on the basis of certain decisions of the CIC in regard to disclosure of DPC proceedings, they have gone ahead and put up all the information regarding DPC proceedings on their website. A response could not be immediately given to the appellant when his RTI-application was received (dated 27.08.2007) because of the deliberation regarding the modalities to upload this information on the website was in progress. Therefore, an interim reply dated 28.08.2007 was given to the appellant. Finally, the DPC Proceedings were uploaded on the CIL’s website on 18.12.2007. A hard copy of the DPC proceedings was also given to the appellant on 11.08.2008.
  21. cvpillai

    Denial of Promotion

    I am working in an autonomous Institute under MHRD. In 1982, some of my juniors were given promotion based on certain rules. As a result of this they had superseded me. When we made a representation saying that according to the fundamental rules, when a junior person is given higher scale of pay, he cannot supersede his senior. And if this happens, the senior too will have to be given the higher scale. Accordigly, I had got a jump in my paysacle. Later on the management said that what had been given to me (higher scale) is trated as a promotion. They could do this by making a new order saying that any change in scale will be treated as promotion. My doubt is that since the higher scale was given in accordance with the Fundamental Rules, can the management or MHRD make additions to Fundamental Rules ? Can I take-up this matter through RTI ? Kindly help Viswanath C Pillai
  22. Members may find the first appeal that I made find useful. It is reproduced below. ------------------------------------------------ Jul 14 2007 FAA and ED (HR), IOC HO Mumbai Dear Sir, Kindly refer to the RTI Application no. vaghelabdhoq6 dated 24th June 2007 and the reply dated 9th July 2007 by Shri S K Sarangi, PIO and GM (Planning) IOC HO Mumbai.(Copies enclosed for ready reference). The norms for promotion informed by Shri S K Sarangi, PIO and GM (Planning) IOC HO Mumbai and "said to be the norms for promotion" is only a vague and subjective statement. It does not have any quantifiable parameter, with marking system attached to each parameter, which is an essential practical requisite to implement the policy. Therefore, such an abstract statement cannot be a codified policy and cannot be accepted as the "norms" for considering me for promotion from Officer Grade D to Grade E (Manager to Senior Manager) in 1997. Further, every information requested / furnished under the Right to Information Act 2005 need not necessarily be fulfilling the criteria of public interest. e. g. the question of public interest doesn't arise for the information that is requested / furnished under Section 4 (d) and under Section 8 (3) of the Act. These information pertain to "reasons of Quasi-judicial / administrative decisions for the affected person" and "information pertaining to the events that took place more than twenty years ago" respectively. This shows that the stand taken by the PIO regarding "information requested not in public interest" is irrelevant and out of context and the PIO has refused the information on invalid and unjustifiable ground. Moreover, it is quite possible that there are no norms for promotion at all. Promotions have been / are being decided arbitrarily and with a view not to accept the fact of non-existence of the norms / hide the true picture, the PIO has prepared a description citing it as the "norms". Considering the above possibilities, before taking a decision on this appeal, Shri A K Rauniar, FAA may kindly verify the official records on the "PIO informed norms for promotion" with regard to: 1. Name and designation of the authority that approved the "PIO informed norms for promotion" . 2. Policy letter no. / date vide which the "PIO informed norms for promotion" were circulated. 3. The date since the "PIO informed norms for promotion" has been in effect. 4. Period during which the "PIO informed norms for promotion" have been in effect. 5. Whether the "PIO informed norms for promotion" are presently also in vogue. Shri A K Rauniar FAA is also requested to take into consideration the fact that Shri A K Rauniar, ED (HR) IOC HO Mumbai preferred not to respond to the request of the undersigned dated 13th June 2007 and did not provide the requested norms which necessitated this RTI application. The reasons for ignoring the reasonable request for informing the norms for promotion & not acknowledging / not responding to it be taken into consideration. As regards the judgments w. r. to the disclosure of information on DPC minutes, Marks in DPC and the wrong applicability of Section 8(1)(j) by the PIOs in the cases of an RTI applicant seeking the information pertaining to himself, I quote the following highly relevant recent decisions of the Central Information Commission, New Delhi. Decision I : The first and the foremost is the twenty six page landmark CIC full bench decision No. Decision_23042007_03.pdf dated 23rd April 2007 in the case of Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh v/s Lok Sabha Secretariat . Other six CIC decisions reiterating the crucial ruling given by the said full bench decision are as under: Decision No. II : Decision_09052007_01.pdf - Shri Om Prakash v/s STC Decision No. III : Decision_10052007_02.pdf - Shri S K Sharma v/s Department of Posts Decision No. IV : Decision_14052007_09.pdf - Shri R K Agarwal v/s SBI Decision No. V : Decision_14062007_18.pdf - Shri M Ramachandran v/s JIPME&R Decision No. VI : Decision_18052007_11.pdf - Shri Rahul Aggarwal v/s Syndicate Bank Decision No. VII : Decision_28052007_06.pdf - Dr. Paful Kumar Shaoo v/s LIC The relevant and crucial abstracts from these decisions given by the Information Commissioners of CIC are quoted hereby as under : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Decision I : Decision_23042007_03.pdf dated 23rd April 2007 in the case of Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh v/s Lok Sabha Secretariat: 32. In so far as application of Section 8(1)(j) to deny disclosure on the ground that personal information which has no public interest is concerned, it is necessary to explain the scope and ambit of this sub section. Section 8(1)(j) reads as under: "information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information". This Section has to be read as a whole. If that were done, it would be apparent that that "personal information" does not mean information relating to the information seeker, but about a third party. That is why, in the Section, it is stated "unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual". If one were to seek information about himself or his own case, the question of invasion of privacy of his own self does not arise. If one were to ask information about a third party and if it were to invade the privacy of the individual, the information seeker can be denied the information on the ground that disclosure would invade the privacy of a third party. Therefore, when a citizen seeks information about his own case and as long as the information sought is not exempt in terms of other provisions of Section 8 of RTI Act, this Section cannot be applied to deny the information. Thus, denial for inspection/verification of his own answer sheets by a citizen applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) is not sustainable. ------------------------------------------------------------- Decision No. II: Decision_09052007_01.pdf - Shri Om Prakash v/s STC This will be in consonance with the full Bench decision of this Commission wherein it has been decided that DPC minutes and connected proceedings are not exempt from disclosure. (Appeal No CIC/WB/C 2006/233- dated 23.4.2007 (Paragraph 42) - Shri Rakeh Kumar Singh V Lok Sabha Secretariat-). Accordingly, I direct the CPIO to furnish the information sought for by the appellant within 15 days from the date of this decision, in respect of DPC held from the year 1997 to 2005 with specific reference to the year 1999. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Decision No. III: Decision_10052007_02.pdf - Shri S K Sharma v/s Department of Posts Therefore, when a citizen seeks information about his own case and as long as the information sought is not exempt in terms of other provisions of Section 8 of RTI Act, this Section cannot be applied to deny the information". (Decision dated 23.4.2007 in Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 -Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs Lok Sabha Secretariat—Paragraph No 32) In the present case, the appellant is seeking information about his own case and therefore, the same cannot be denied under Section 8(1) (j). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Decision No. IV: Decision_14052007_09.pdf - Shri R K Agarwal v/s SBI Application dated 30.10.2006 seeking for a copy of the recommendation of DGM. Both CPIO and AA have declined to furnish the information relying on Section 8(1)(j). Recently, the full Bench of this Commission has decided that when a citizen seeks information about his own case, the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied. (Para 32 Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh,Vs Lok Sabha Secretariat Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 ; dated 23 4 2007) Therefore, the CPIO will furnish the information sought by the appellant within 15 days. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Decision No. V: Decision_14062007_18.pdf - Shri M Ramachandran v/s JIPME&R As per this decision the Full Commission has felt the disclosure of proceedings may bring fairness and make the system more transparent and accountable. The Commission more over finds that the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee or its minutes are not covered by the exemptions provided for u/s 8 (1) and therefore such proceedings and minutes are to be disclosed. On account of the above decision I hereby direct the CPIO to disclose the DPC Minutes of the meeting (Group-C) dated 26.6.1997 within 15 days from the receipt of this direction. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Decision No. VI: Decision_18052007_11.pdf - Shri Rahul Aggarwal v/s Syndicate Bank Going through the CPIO's order, AA's decision, it is clear that disciplinary proceedings against the officer has been completed and he was also awarded with punishment of removal from service. The appellant is also requesting information about his own case, hence citing section 8.1(j) is not relevant. The Commission has given a number of decisions in this regard and recently in the case of Appeal No CIC/WB/C 2006/233- dated 23.4.2007 - Shri Rakesh Kumar SinghV Lok Sabha Secretariat, the full Bench of the Commission has also decided this matter by indicating section 8.1(j) is applicable only in respect of third party information since it is going to interfere with the privacy of the individual. There is no way section 8.1(j) can be applied in this case when the appellant is seeking information about his own case. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Decision No. VII: Decision_28052007_06.pdf - Dr. Paful Kumar Shaoo v/s LIC However, a Full Bench of this Commission has recently decided that DPC minutes are not exempt from disclosure. (Para 32 Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh,Vs Lok Sabha Secretariat Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 ; dated 23 4 2007). In view of the decision of the full Commission that DPC minutes, even though would reflect the substance of the confidential reports, is not exempt from disclosure, I am of the view that similarly the marks awarded for work record, even if it is based on confidential reports, is not exempt from disclosure and has to be disclosed. In so far as disclosure of marks obtained by other candidates is concerned, this Commission has repeatedly taken the view that marks obtained by successful candidates have to be disclosed. Accordingly, the marks obtained by the successful candidates, without disclosing the break up, should be provided to the appellant. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These CIC decisions also conclusively confirm that the PIO has erred in taking shelter of Section 8(1)(j) for refusing to disclose the requested information. In the light of the foregoing, FAA is requested to direct the PIO to disclose the requested information expeditiously. Kindly acknowledge receipt of this first appeal. With kind regards, (Vaghela B D), RTI Appellant, Ahmedabad 202 SARAP OPP NAVJIVAN PRESS OFF ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD 380014 CC: Shri S K Sarangi, PIO and GM (Planning) IOC HO Mumbai --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Babubhai Vaghela [*****Email link deleted*******] Date: Jun 24, 2007 12:12 PM Subject: vaghelabdhoq6 : Further to letter no.WR:HRD:1161 dated 18th June 1997 from DGM (HR) IOC WR To: S K Sarangi ****email link deleted******* Shri S K Sarangi, PIO and GM (Planning), IOC HO Mumbai Dear Sir, Further to the letter WR : HRD : 1161 dated 18th June 1997 from DGM (HR) IOC WR and (copy enclosed) my message dated 13th June 2007 to Shri A K Rauniar, ED (HR) IOC HO Mumbai (forwarded herewith), under the Right to Information Act 2005, 1. Kindly let me know the norms against which I was considered for promotion from Grade D to Grade E in 1997. 2. Kindly let me know the marks that I was given against each of the parameter of the norms and the aggregate marks awarded to me. 3. Also kindly let me know the aggregate cut-off marks considered for promotion from Grade D to Grade E in 1997. Application fee follows. Kindly expedite the requested information. With kind regards, (Vaghela B D), 202 Sarap, Opp Navjivan Press, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad - 380 014 Resi - 079 2754 0128 / M - 94276 08632 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: [******email link deleted********] Date: Jun 13, 2007 8:11 AM Subject: Further to letter no.WR:HRD:1161 dated 18th June 1997 from DGM (HR) IOC WR To: Shri A K Rauniar, ED (HR), IOC HO Mumbai (Through Proper Channel) Further to letter no. WR:HRD:1161 dated 18th June 1997 from DGM (HR)IOC WR Mumbai (copy enclosed),kindly let me have the norms against which I was considered for promotion from Grade D to Grade E in 1997. (Vaghela B D), Sr. Manager (PPES), IOC GSO Ahmedabad Emp No. 11709
  23. ganpat1956

    RTI stops senior officer's promotion

    AHMEDABAD: Often, tainted government servants, who know how to pull the right strings in the corridors of power in Gandhinagar, get to keep their job despite a vigilance inquiry pending, and are also promoted. But then, dubious efforts of a public office can be thwarted as has been shown by a commoner who used the Right to Information (RTI) Act to bring this issue to the fore and even nailed some top ranking officers of the health department for helping the tainted official. Ashwin Patel, who is a drug manufacturer himself, had asked whether the promotion of assistant depot manager of the Central Medical Stores Organisation (CMSO) RS Shah can be considered legal or not. Shah was chargesheeted by his own department and a vigilance inquiry too was pending against him. At the end of the exercise, Shah's promotion was withdrawn on Friday. CMSO is the nodal body in the health department responsible for procurement of medicines and surgical goods for government hospitals across the state. The issue had come up for hearing before the state chief information commissioner R N Das on July 17. Despite several appeals, Patel was refused information regarding the status of the vigilance proceedings pending against Shah. Das pulled up both the director CMSO Manorama Shah and the principal secretary for persistent denial of information. What was more appalling, was the fact that even the principal secretary had admitted in a reply to Shah dated September 22 last year, that the promotion given to R S Shah was malafide and irregular. Patel procured under the RTI Act two letters—- one written by the under secretary dated October 30, 2001 and the other written by a vigilance officer on October 11, 2001, categorically informing the department that it had been decided to initiate departmental enquiry against him. So perturbed were the health department officials that they never allowed Patel to even inspect the files pertaining to Shah's vigilance inquiry under the RTI Act. Shah's promotion was ordered on February 8, 2002 by the departmental promotion committee (DPC) of the health and family welfare with the recommendation of the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC). Interestingly, on the same day the director of CMSO had issued a chargesheet against Shah. Three days later, all departmental proceedings against Shah were stalled and on February 21, 2002, Shah was exonerated from the charges. Das categorically noted that the matter raised by Patel had merit as it seeks to promote transparency in the working of a public authority. On Friday, Shah's promotion was nullified. RTI stops senior officer's promotion-Ahmedabad-Cities-The Times of India
  24. Why cant ACR and DPC proceedings made public property
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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