1) You underestimate Mr H. He is made of sterner stuff and comes from
good military (British Army) stock which does not run away from the
battlefield.
2) Mr Ansari's competence is not in question. He was a competent and
able Information Commissioner. The issue is about the politics and
discretion in selection of ICs/CIC.
3) The point about Mr H's resignation is about principles. This is not
the first time he has resigned in his career. There was that famous
incident in J*K when he was Divisional Commissioner and when army men
were accused of raping village women. He resigned from the IAS on
moral grounds and was persuaded to withdraw it after suitable action
was taken.
4) Mr Tiwari is also said to have reigned from IAS on moral grounds
and when he decided to father the RTI Act.
www.orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/aug2004/engishPdf/Pages27-31.pdf
Compulsory reading for every RTI activist where "retired bureaucrat
A.N.Tiwari" expresses himself on RTI.
5) Finally, concerning Mr Irfan Khan, there is no question of my
hacking email IDs of HJ group and causing chaos. Certain moderators /
owners of HJ and RTI4emp are quite fed up and want to have
"democracy" in those groups like we have here. The RTI'ing public at
large is also fed up with autocrats (NRIs and/or corrupt ex-babus) and
the opaque censorship policies of those groups..As a true democrat, I
have provided them (free of cost & as a public service) my consultancy
and advice on how to form / run a google group. So the question of
hacking does not arise when the email ID lists are being offered
freely. Incidentally, I have declined to add emails from those lists
to rti_india.
7) With so many clone / copycat RTI groups, it is only a matter of
time before the public gets fed up with the mountains of email spam
and opts for EITHER democracy (google groups) or dictatorship/anarchy
(yahoo groups) or NEITHER !!!
Sarbajit
On Nov 2, 10:50 pm, Abhimanyu <who.will.file....@gmail.com> wrote:
> sir
> you have many better things to prove . why prove wajahat was wrong or right
> now ???
>
> as far as ansari is concerned , as you rightly said , he is in full glare
> of media now . his incompetency will be visible now .
>
> sarabjit and we all must try to keep wajahat participating in our groups
> instead of hooting him out.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:10 PM, C J Karira <cjkar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Irfan,
>
> > Fortunately, this is one of those times that
> > Sarbajit has hit the nail on the head.
> > And I can prove it..........
>
> > RTIwanted
>
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM, irfan khan <rtirti.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Wajahat sir .
>
> >> plz do not discuss this issue with sarabajit any more.
>
> >> sarabajit has destroyed this group and hum janege group by hacking email
> >> IDs of group members.
>
> >> You cannot roll back yur resignation issue now. Sarabajit want that you
> >> should stopp participating in this group thats why he is trying to rack up
> >> your personal issues in this forum .
>
> >> sarabjit appears to be paid servant of A N Tiwari.
>
> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:50 PM, sroy1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Sir
>
> >>> I must respectfully say that you are being somewhat parsimonious with
> >>> the truth (see below) which has been circulating on internet forums
> >>> (and established by dox obtained in RTI) ..
>
> >>> 1) You also endorsed a copy of that letter to Secretary/Personnel
> >>> knowing very well that in terms of the Indian Constitution the
> >>> President is bound to act on the.aid and advice of the Council of
> >>> Ministers.
>
> >>> 2) In your letter you requested that you be relieved from office by
> >>> 30.Oct..2009
>
> >>> 3) You had already arranged that in view of the short time available
> >>> that the senior-most Information Commissioner be recommended for
> >>> elevation as CIC. That it was your understanding that Mr M.M.Ansari
> >>> was the senior-most IC based on his date of joining the Commission. It
> >>> was also your understanding that Mr Ansari would serve a full term
> >>> of 5 years as Chief Information Commissioner based on his date of
> >>> birth and the peculiar wording of sections 12/13.
>
> >>> 4) That the PM agreed that meeting of Selection Committee could be
> >>> fixed on either 26 or 27 Sept 2009.
>
> >>> 5) That in the meantime Mr Tiwari called your bluff and established
> >>> that he was the senior-most Information Commissioner through certain
> >>> legal precedents
>
> >>> 6) That accordingly you deemed it prudent to withdraw your resignation
> >>> on your own despite the fact that there is no express provision in law
> >>> for you to do so. By doing so you disregarded the judgment of the
> >>> Supreme Court relied upon in Ms Omita Paul's resignation pertaining to
> >>> articles 124 and 217 of the Const which held that the resignation is
> >>> effective immediately upon its being submitted.
>
> >>> 7) And which is why I submitted that it would be much better to stick
> >>> to the official line, ie. that your resignation was conditional,
> >>> unlike Ms Omita Paul's.
>
> >>> Sarbajit
>
> >>> On Nov 2, 7:46 pm, wajahat <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
> >>> > My letter was addressed and sent to the President
> >>> > Wajahat
>
> >>> > ----- Original Message -----
> >>> > From: sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com>
> >>> > Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:04 pm
> >>> > Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges
> >>> notice by CIC
> >>> > To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
>
> >>> > Sir
>
> >>> > The DoPT has categorically informed citizens in RTI that
>
> >>> > 1) Your resignation was not effective immediately because it was
> >>> conditional upon your expressed wish to be relieved of office by Madam
> >>> President, thereby distinguishing your case from Ms Omita Paul's
>
> >>> > 2) There is no provision in the RTI Act for a resignation, once
> >>> submitted, to be withdrawn.
>
> >>> > 3) There is a laid down procedure for resignations such as yours to be
> >>> forwarded to Madam President via the DoPT after obtaining the approval of
> >>> the Minister. This is usually done upto a month after the date of the
> >>> resignations. In your case, the Minister declined to forward your
> >>> resignation to Madam President. In other words, Madam President never even
> >>> had a chance to read your letter of resignation and had to be content with
> >>> press reports.
>
> >>> > Sarbajit
>
> >>> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:05 AM, wajahat <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
>
> >>> > Silly! A fictional media report does not a notice make. And i did
> >>> withdraw the resignation. It can hardly be' unwise' to conceal the truth
> >>> > Wajahat
>
> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:57 PM, sroy1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Oh and I forgot to mention that at the meeting of the Selection
> >>> Committee Mr L.K.Advani put his foot down and refused to
> >>> accept Mr Ansari as the next CIC. And which also explains
> >>> why Mr Ansari is such a popular choice for interlocutor in J&K.
>
> >>> Sarbajit
>
> >>> On Nov 2, 10:20 pm, sroy1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > Sir
>
> >>> > I must respectfully say that you are being somewhat parsimonious with
> >>> > the truth (see below) which has been circulating on internet forums
> >>> > (and established by dox obtained in RTI) ..
>
> >>> > 1) You also endorsed a copy of that letter to Secretary/Personnel
> >>> > knowing very well that in terms of the Indian Constitution the
> >>> > President is bound to act on the.aid and advice of the Council of
> >>> > Ministers.
>
> >>> > 2) In your letter you requested that you be relieved from office by
> >>> > 30.Oct..2009
>
> >>> > 3) You had already arranged that in view of the short time available
> >>> > that the senior-most Information Commissioner be recommended for
> >>> > elevation as CIC. That it was your understanding that Mr M.M.Ansari
> >>> > was the senior-most IC based on his date of joining the Commission. It
> >>> > was also your understanding that Mr Ansari would serve a full term
> >>> > of 5 years as Chief Information Commissioner based on his date of
> >>> > birth and the peculiar wording of sections 12/13.
>
> >>> > 4) That the PM agreed that meeting of Selection Committee could be
> >>> > fixed on either 26 or 27 Sept 2009.
>
> >>> > 5) That in the meantime Mr Tiwari called your bluff and established
> >>> > that he was the senior-most Information Commissioner through certain
> >>> > legal precedents
>
> >>> > 6) That accordingly you deemed it prudent to withdraw your resignation
> >>> > on your own despite the fact that there is no express provision in law
> >>> > for you to do so. By doing so you disregarded the judgment of the
> >>> > Supreme Court relied upon in Ms Omita Paul's resignation pertaining to
> >>> > articles 124 and 217 of the Const which held that the resignation is
> >>> > effective immediately upon its being submitted.
>
> >>> > 7) And which is why I submitted that it would be much better to stick
> >>> > to the official line, ie. that your resignation was conditional,
> >>> > unlike Ms Omita Paul's.
>
> >>> > Sarbajit
>
> >>> > On Nov 2, 7:46 pm, wajahat <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
>
> >>> > > My letter was addressed and sent to the President
> >>> > > Wajahat
>
> >>> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >>> > > From: sroy 1947 <sroy1...@gmail.com>
> >>> > > Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 2:04 pm
> >>> > > Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges
> >>> notice by CIC
> >>> > > To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
>
> >>> > > Sir
>
> >>> > > The DoPT has categorically informed citizens in RTI that
>
> >>> > > 1) Your resignation was not effective immediately because it was
> >>> conditional upon your expressed wish to be relieved of office by Madam
> >>> President, thereby distinguishing your case from Ms Omita Paul's
>
> >>> > > 2) There is no provision in the RTI Act for a resignation, once
> >>> submitted, to be withdrawn.
>
> >>> > > 3) There is a laid down procedure for resignations such as yours to
> >>> be forwarded to Madam President via the DoPT after obtaining the approval of
> >>> the Minister. This is usually done upto a month after the date of the
> >>> resignations. In your case, the Minister declined to forward your
> >>> resignation to Madam President. In other words, Madam President never even
> >>> had a chance to read your letter of resignation and had to be content with
> >>> press reports.
>
> >>> > > Sarbajit
>
> >>> > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 8:05 AM, wajahat <whabibul...@nic.in> wrote:
>
> >>> > > Silly! A fictional media report does not a notice make. And i did
> >>> withdraw the resignation. It can hardly be' unwise' to conceal the truth
> >>> > > Wajahat
No comments:
Post a Comment