[HumJanenge] Re: No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

OK

Firstly I m glad that we seem to now acknowledge that fault does not
lie with conduct of a particular IC. In fact any good IC would deal in
the same way, and in your case IC(SS) has gone out of her way to issue
a detailed order showing considerable application of mind, whereas say
erstwhile IC(MA) would have disposed you in a 2 para order.

2) If the PA has not VOLUNTARILY done its 4(1)(d) discloure, (and
which I emphasise they are not to do VOLUNTARILY but AS A MATTER OF
COURSE after the SC Constitutional bench judgment in the S.P.Mukharji
(???) corruption case) in every decision they take, it is open to the
AGGRIEVED UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES to request the PIO to publish the
same, and thereafter to THEMSELVES file section 6 RTI requests.

3) Instead you have attempted to take on the problems of the entire
world (for reasons best known to you) and caused a genuine
apprehension on the part of the PA that their work will come to a
standstill since your RTI request(s) is NOT SPECIFIC !!! . . IC(SS)
after having heard you, has upheld the PA and cited the SC order. She
has however allowed you 1 FULL DAY's INSPECTION of all records (which
the PA wishes to show you) with the right to take copies. Thus as
IC(MA) would famously say "there is no question of information
denial".

4) The ONLY QUESTION you must address is ... "WHAT IS MY LOCUS STANDI
TO DO ALL THIS ?".
There is a clear difference in law between an aggrieved person who
fights for his own rights, and an interloper, intermeddler who acts as
a busybody / blackmailer. Unfortunately even genuine busybodies end up
being characterised as blackmailers and which affects ALL RTI USERS.so
I have no sympathy for such people.

5) Get a copy of the ARSB's "cooked up" explanation and start RTIing
from there.

Sarbajit

On Mar 4, 3:47 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, sir.
> now let us come to actual point.
> ASRB is a recruitment body which carries out recruitment of scientists
> for ICAR. for the last five-six years, none of the non selected or the
> candidate not considered eligible has ever been intimated about the
> reasons for his/her non selection (violation of section 4(1)(d). No
> list of candidates rejected/non selected/not called for interview/non
> shortlisted has ever been published. one even does not come to know as
> to who was selected.
> The ASRB sends recommendations to ICAR. ICAR after getting
> recommendations studies the files and and then sends them back to
> ASRB.
> When I filed application with ASRB they did not disclose anything. in
> the meantime, i also filed application with ICAR asking for inspection
> of records of scientists selected. they were very liberal. so i
> carried out inspection of applications of about 25 people and found
> that atleast 5 of them were not eligible to even apply/not qualified
> to even get shortlisted.
> I then filed a complaint with the prime minister/agriculture
> minister/chairman ASRB highlighting all important facts. copy of the
> same is enclosed.
> PMO marked it to secretary to look into the matter who inturn sent it
> to ASRB for needful. Now i have come to know that ASRB has not done
> anything on this communication and sent a detailed (cooked up reply)
> explanation.
> Now what to do? I would like to get your feedback on this issue.
>
> On 3/3/12, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Sandeep
>
> > I shall confine myself only to her order.
>
> > 1) It is clear therefrom that YOU are a VEXATIOUS RTI BUSYBODY filing
> > RTI applications like a TAXICAB for hire. (At least that is what they
> > are going to say).
>
> > 2) YOU have invited SS's order onto yourself. Aa bail mujhe maar.
>
> > 3)  Your arguments for the P&H are stupid (and you have only a small
> > chance of winning - and that too only because the P^H HC is one of the
> > more liberal courts). You would be KICKED OUT in the SC.
>
> > 4) I completely agree with her that PERSONAL details of unsuccessful
> > candidates cannot be disclosed in RTI, even after the fact.
>
> > 5) ">what should one do when the FAA chooses not to give any decision
> > even after her orders ?"
> > Ans: File a 2nd appeal (for the FIRST TIME, because the first of her
> > orders were given in  "complaint" jurisdiction in routine).
>
> > Sarbajit