Jump to content

Question

uniquee

I want to file a RTI to know information about following promotion issues from one of the PSU, please help me in framing the application:

1) Ranking list of eligible promotees for the cadre of officers in the CY Promotion round

2) The criteria applied for preparing Ranking list for promotion to the cadre of officer

3) The seniority list of employees eligible for  promotion to the cadre of officer

4) Number of employees in the seniority list not considered for promotion due to vigilance issues

5) Number of employees in the seniority list not considered for promotion due to adverse confidential reports

6) Weightage applied for preparing ranking list for promotion to the cadre of officer on these counts Seniority, Merit, Confidential Reports

7) Total Marks received by the candidate at Rank 1 in the list & Total Marks received by the last candidate selected from the ranking list as officer

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Prasad GLN

Please search website and file the application as per prescribed format and come back when PIO denies for due guidance.  From the last seven years you have been a regular member and never came back to seek  further guidance/ for informing status  after seeking guidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
uniquee

Ok Sir, one of my friend had asked me to help prepare RTI application, I was getting confused about framing Application so had asked for help from forum.

I will prepare the application & asked him to file. If PIO refuses I will post the updates.

Sorry for not being active for last few years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Sunil Ahya

The golden rule for filing RTI is that each and every query of yours should preferably point towards one or the other document.

Typically a RTI application begins with the phrase:

Kindly provide a certified photocopy of the following documents:

1.

2.

3. ....

4 And so on and so forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • smnislam
      By smnislam
      Why cant ACR and DPC proceedings made public property
    • ganpat1956
      By ganpat1956
      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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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