Re: [HumJanenge] Shailesh Gandhi may please explain ?

I am sharing one more similar decision given by Shri Satyananad Mishra, Chief Information Commissioner in the case of Shri Neeraj Mehta, an other applicant (name not disclosed on request) and in my case relating to Cabinet Sectt.   Background of the case of Mr. Mehta   He appeared in an exam for the Dy. Field Officer conducted by the Cabinet Sectt. and asked about the outcome of the examination.    2.         Case of another applicant   She has applied for the post of Research Officer but on not receiving any information on the status of her application, requested to inform as follows:   i.                     Status in respect of the recruitment. ii.                   Status of her candidature. iii.                  Whether the letters for the test/ interview have been issued or are being issued. iv.                 Eligibility criteria.   Shri Ashok Kumar, Director (SR) replied on 12 Feb. 2009 that RAW, Aviation Research Centre (ARC) and Special Frontier Force (SFF) are under the Cabinet Sectt. which figures in the Second Schedule are exempted from the purview of the RTI Act.  Mr. Kumar further added that hence RAW being an orgn. dealing with the Security and Intelligence, it would not be possible to furnish the infn.  Besides, there is no involvement of human right violations and allegations of corruption, therefore, this Sectt. is not under any obligation to provide the infn.  Shri K B S Katoch, Appellate Authority and Addl. Secy. confirmed the decision of the CPIO giving many citations.    In the recent past, Division bench of Kolkata High Court has allowed to see even answer sheets. CIC has now also allowed to see answer sheets.   3.         In my RTI application, I requested for information on the posts of Research Officer, Asstt. Foreman and Trainee Pilot (Rotary Wing) advtd. by the Cabinet Sectt., eligibility criteria laid – down for issuing calls for written exam and/ or interview for Research Officer, to furnish the list of candidates who have been called for appearing in the written exam or test.   One query was Compelling circumstance for adopting secretive and closed-door practice undertaken for the recruitment process by directing the candidates to address application to the post-box number only as such overt practices are against the transparent working in this age of RTI Act.               I also mentioned in my application that the exemption granted to three organs under the Cabinet Sectt. is not absolute but 'provided that the infn pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under that sub-section'.  Clearly, not giving opportunity to the deserving candidates or not disclosing the criteria raises apprehension of corruption in the recruitment.  Depriving the eligible candidate from competeting for the post is violation of human and fundamental right too and the FR as above all other laws.  The FAA and CIC rejected the appeals for information.   These are the reasons that the public has started a forceful campaign against the corruption in a big way.    The decisions mentioned in the earlier email and the three decisions mentioned above need to be challenged in the High Court but the poor candidates do not have expertise and resources to seek the High Court intervention.     However, if they get some lawyer who is ready to fight above mentioned cases, they can challenge the decision of the CIC.   COPY OF THE DECISION   Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/000931 & 995SM Right to Information Act 2005 Under Section (19) Date of hearing  - 4 March 2011 Date of decision - 4 March 2011   Name of the Appellant : Shri Neeraj Mehta DA114, SFS Flats, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi–110 088.   Shri Mahendra Kumar Gupta 1034, Plot No. 23, Apna Villa, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 075.   Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat, EA. II Section, Bikaner House (Annexe), Shahjahan Road, New Delhi – 110 011.   One of the Appellant, Shri Neeraj Mehta was present in person. On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present: (i) Shri Ashok Kumar, CPIO & Director (SR) (ii) Shri Shivendra Kumar, SO, (iii) Shri I P Sharma, Consultant, (iv) Shri Virendra Singh, Assistant   Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra   2. We heard both these cases together since both relate to public authorities included in the Second Schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellant was present in one of the cases (000995); the CIC/WB/A/2009/000931 & 995SM Appellant in the other case was not present in spite of notice. The Respondents were present. We heard the submissions of all.   3. In both the cases, the information sought is related to personnel matters, in one case, about the outcome of the selection for the post of Deputy Field Officer and in the other, about the feeling of the post of Research Officer/Trainee Pilot. In both the cases, the CPIO concerned declined to provide any information by claiming that the respective organisations was included in the Second Schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act and, therefore, the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act did not extend to those organisations.   4. The Appellant submitted that all that he wanted to know was whether the results of the examination conducted for recruitment to the post for which advertise meant had been issued were declared or not.   He further submitted that, for the sake of transparency, such information should be disclosed in the public domain. On the other hand, the Respondents submitted that, irrespective of the nature of information sought, the CPIO was not obliged to provide any information since the organisation itself was included in the Second Schedule.   5. After carefully considering the facts of the both the cases and the submissions made by the Appellant present, we tend to agree with the decision taken by the CPIO in each of these cases. In neither of these cases, the information sought had any relation to the human rights violation or corruption, the only grounds on which information could have been given. Consequently, the appeals are disallowed.   CIC/WB/A/2009/000931 & 995SM   6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. (Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy RegistrarCIC/WB/A/2009/000931 & 995SM --- On Mon, 20/6/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: [HumJanenge] Shailesh Gandhi may please explain ? To: "humjanenge" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com> Date: Monday, 20 June, 2011, 7:01 AM In a recent decision by IC(Shailesh Gandhi) on May 13. 2011 [CIC/SM/A/2011/000277/SG] he disallows an employee of RAW (exempted organisation u/s 24 ) from receiving information about why his salary is not being paid, incidentally the appellant took the stand that non-payment of salary is a human rights violation and hence exemption u/s 24 does not apply. Contrast this with a  "ballsy" decision on similar point  by IC(M/L.Sharma) [CIC/LS/A/2010/001277] where IC(MLS) states that the Commission CONSISTENTLY holds that administrative matters of an intelligence organisation exempted u/s 24 are not covered by the exemption and information will be disclosed. If there is any decision from the High Court overturning the CONSISTENT view of the CIC can IC(SG) share it or at least put it up on the CIC website uner the relevant link. Sarbajit