Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC

Dear Gupta ji; Be assured that Whatever they may plan, nothing is going to work in their favor anymore except that the cleverly woven schemes would merely defer the Truths Emerging just to a few more weeks later !     Ashok Reach out and touch someone with your Love & Gratitude. ~Ashok --- On Thu, 30/12/10, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, 30 December, 2010, 4:10 PM An strange decision. Recently, the CIC ordered that the assessts of the Judges of even SC,  Ministers should be declared and put on the websites.  This decision was confirmed by the single bench and bench of multiple judges of the Delhi High Court.   For former CICs and others, the same parametres are not adopted.    I wish to agree with your comments that it may be useless going to the "convention of cannibles and preaching vegetarian".  But, if Mr. Dhurve had not gone in appeal before the CIC, such things must have not come to the light.  Likewise, if I go in appeal, the picture will be made clear.  From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> To: rti4empowerment <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>; vihardurve@gmail.com Sent: Thu, 30 December, 2010 9:28:25 AM Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC Dear Guptaji Please read this recent CIC decision http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_WB_A_2009_000862_M_48366.pdf "Vihar Durve versus CPIO/DoPT" Do you think that any IC will give an order which affects him also ? Notwithstanding this, it is quite surprising that such an experienced person like Vihar Durve could not argue his case properly and get his submissions / legal arguments properly recorded in the order. This is an extremely poor quality decision by IC-Deepak Sandhu, even the FAA's order in this case was better reasoned. There are technical reasons why this order must be reheard, and I hope that Mr Vihar Durve pursues his further remedies within the CIC. Sarbajit On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: A English proverb sprang to mind when I read your post, (please don't mind my saying this). "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread". Sarbajit On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:33 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: At the most, CIC will reject the appeal and it has no more power. In that case, I will have an option to go to Delhi High Court. From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com> Sent: Wed, 29 December, 2010 6:22:28 PM Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC Dear Guptaji 1) I cannot (regretably) reply properly without compromising some other action we are on. 2) Please read the following very carefully and act accordingly. "In my view it would be very unwise to go to CIC with DoPT as the Respondent". 3) You might get a favorable order but the chances are against it. Going to CIC on this matter is like going to a convention of cannibals and preaching vegeterianism. Sarbajit On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:12 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: Dear Roy,   Reproducing below the information sought at point 3 and 4:   3.    "Names of the short-listed candidates considered for the post." 4.    "Whether the short listing and selection criteria would be made public by putting the names on the Deptt. website or by any other means."    I think on these two issue, going to CIC in appeal would be appropriate. Your views.     From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com> Sent: Wed, 29 December, 2010 3:58:49 PM Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] APPOINTMENT OF CCIC Dear Guptaji Did you use the word "short list" in your RTI request ? If there was no short list then there are no documents for her to give. You must read section 12, 13 etc. of the RTI Act very carefully and frame your request strictly in terms of the Act. When the Act does not speak of short list you can hardly expect DoPT to admit that there is any such list or need for a list. The position in law is that a COMMITTEE of 3 members of Parliament recommends name/names to the President for appointment. The terms of ref of this Committee are already laid out in the Act. Till such time as additional rules to regulate the functioning / procedure to be followed by the Committee does not exist they can do anything within the limits of the Act. 100s of pages of documents procured under  RTI Act on this show that the Committee is continuously changing its procedure and methods. Sarbajit On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:23 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: By filing an RTI, I asked from the DoPT names of short-listed candidates considered for the post of Chief Information Commissioner and whether the short listing and selection criteria would be made public.   On filing the first appeal, Shri Anuradha S. Chagti, Dy. Secy. & First Appellate Authority has informed that no documents are available on these points and an appeal against this order of FAA can be made to the CIC.   It seems that only one name was considered at the time of appointing Shri A N Tiwari as CCIC or the DoPT has taken a decision to appoint the Senior Most IC as CIC and / or only one name was considered.   What next?  Views of activists are request whether second appeal is desirable on the two aforesaid issues.