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

 

 

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.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
  • Moderators
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.

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
  • Most Solved

    1. 1
      Sunil Ahya
      Sunil Ahya
      3
    2. 2
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      1
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      Sunil Ahya
      Sunil Ahya
      10
    2. 2
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      7
    3. 3
      Prasad GLN
      Prasad GLN
      4
    4. 4
      subbu23
      subbu23
      2
    5. 5
      Priya De
      Priya De
      2
  • Our picks

    • Instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof
      Information Commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha held that seeking citizenship proof in case of demand of sensitive information is justified but seeking a signed copy of the application does not seem appropriate as the online portal does not mandate uploading of signatures.
       
      Sinha was hearing the plea of an Odisha-based RTI applicant who had sought from the Army information regarding implementation of rules under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 in all defence establishments.
      The Army did not provide any information to the applicant, the CIC noted. Akhand approached the Commission with a complaint that the central public information officer (CPIO) of the Army has demanded a signed copy of his online RTI application as well as identity proof before providing him the records.
      “In this regard, it may be noted that as far as CPIO’s request for citizenship proof is concerned, the same is not questioned as Commission in its prior decision(s) has held the view that Armed Forces stand on a slightly different footing as there may be instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, and for such reasons it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof,” Sinha noted.
      Originally posted here!
       
      • 1

        Reputation Points

      • 0 replies
    • Some of you -- at least CJ Karira, who helped me years ago in one crucial step, getting SEBI to acknowledge its own circular! -- know of a 15-year quest among desi academics to get SEBI to release its stale masked FII data for academic research. At one point years ago a parliamentary query by Shyam Benegal, then Rajya Sabha MP, sought the release of this data for academic research. He then made a subsequent RTI query asking what had done about his complaint about the terrible answer he got to his parliamentary question. We thought we had succeeded when in response to that SEBI did put in public domain that FII data and promised to update. And to  their credit, they did update it from time to time, even if a bit fitfully. But thanks to a question by a curious IIT-Madras undergrad, we realized that what SEBI gave with one hand they took away with another. While the idea was that the FII IDs would be masked to preserve privacy, without telling anyone, SEBI changed the masks each month, drastically reducing the value for academic research (since you can't even tell how many distinct FIIs are there in the data base, and whether anyone traded over time). It also caused mistakes in academic research since no one imagined that SEBI would use changing masks, when no other regulator or exchange on the planet does so.

      To get SEBI to finally agree to not hide by changing masks, but to keep a stable mask, has taken many years. But at least per the ruling received yesterday, it has been achieved, with no violence to anyone. I attach the ruling. I can also post the various submissions made at the Second Appeal hearing if there is any interest (need to scrub email-IDs, per the policy of this site).

      Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdfThis RTI site, in particular Karira-ji, has been very helpful to me in the course of this long episode thru countless RTI queries. And I am grateful for that from the bottom of my heart. I am confident we will see quite a few PhD dissertations using this database within the next few years.

      Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdf
      Second_Addendum_w_Appendices_29th_Feb_2020.pdf
      CIC-SEBIH-A-2017-139953-BJ.pdf
      Third_Addendum to Additional Submission for RTI Second Appeal_2nd_March_2020.pdf
      To_CIC_2nd_appeal_27th_February_2020_Redacted.pdf
      Draft_Talking_Points_for_the_Hearing.pdf
      From_SEBI_Written Submiissions - Murugappa Krishnan 139953.pdf
      thanking_CIC_post_decision_Redacted.pdf
      • 4

        Reputation Points

      • 3 replies
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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