Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT deny to disclose the names considered for Chief of CIC

Let us not prolong the discussion on this issue since I have already filed the second appeal.  In my RTI application. I asked "Names of the short-listed candidates considered for the post", and "whether the selection criteria would be made public by putting the same on the Deptt.'s Website or by any other means".   I think there is no tangible difference between selection and appointment as only the selected candidate is appointed.  This innovation of leading member on this blog may not be in the minds of the CPIO or the FAA of DoPT because they have not mentioned anything about this but know, after reading this, they may try to defend themselves before CIC on this count.  I remember that one group has come to the conclusion on the basis of a tainted poll by only 11 members that that Mr. Krishan Raj should die when he was on fast unto death for the fair selection of ICs.    The govt. does not want transparent selections/ appointment to favour their confidantes and loyal irrespective of the fact that more deserving candidates are available even within the bureaucracy and outside bureaucracy.  Mr. P J Thamos' case is a glaring example of this. No word has come about the non consideration or rejection of candidature of Ms. Kiran Bedi, IPS or former Justice A P Shah of Delhi High Court and I do not hope that it will ever come.  Govt does not want independent and strong statutory bodies especially after the experience with Mr. T N Sheshan when he was Chief Election Commissioner.  Officers toying the govt lines are convenient for the govt. whether it is in the CIC, CBI, Election Commission, CVC, NHRC or in other bodies.   However, to rectify my so-called mistake, I am seeking file inspection by filing fresh application.  Will definitely share the information further with fellow members. --- On Thu, 31/3/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DoPT deny to disclose the names considered for Chief of CIC To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com Date: Thursday, 31 March, 2011, 8:50 AM Dear Umapathy The Delhi High Court has already considered and disposed of your confusion. A single judge (it may have been appealed) held that the process is one of APPOINTMENT and not of SELECTION. Sarbajit On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 6:37 PM, umapathy subramanyam <umapathi.s.rti@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Roy sir, there is some confusion in your post. Even though the word "selection" is not found in the context, the very process of recommendation itself gives the meaning of selection. so, the  the proceedings of the recommendation committee itself connote the meaning of selection. Hence, there must be some records based on which the selection/appointment is made. Hence, the DOPT is ought to disclose the information to the applicant. regards. umapathi.s   On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Umapathi It seems the prime reason MKG did not get information is because of the POOR drafting of his RTI application. For instance he used words like "selection"  (there is no selection,  a committee RECOMMENDS names to President for APPOINTMENT) and "considered" (does the RTI Act require consideration ?). In the circumstances how can you expect a PIO of DoPT to provide information on hypothetical queries ?? Sunil Ahya made the same kind of mistakes in his 29(1) request to DoPT Is it too much to ask that OUR MEMBERS. at least show some RESPECT for this group's prestige and read the F***ing RTI Act before/while filings RTIs. Sarbajit On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:38 PM, umapathy subramanyam <umapathi.s.rti@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Roy Sir, you view is unacceptable and without any logic . If DOPT has disclosed information to other Members , why shouldn't it be disclosed to shri. M.K.Gupta now ? How  DOPT is right in this regard ?. Regarding two, Wheter ANT was the only Candidate or not can only be known when DOPT disclose ALL  the information pertaining to his selection.What is meant by "no documents are available" . if that is so, how ANT was selected ?. Whatever may be the number of candidates, there must be some documents before making his appointment. His appointment from IC to Chief IC can't be automatic in terms section 12(3) of RTI Act-2005. regards. umapathi.s  On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote: DOPT is absolutely right in denying you the information. I say this for following reasons. 1) DoPT has disclosed lots of information to other members on CIC / IC selection process. 2) In the case of ANT's selection as CIC - he was the ONLY candidate seriously considered. Sarbajit On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:02 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: DoPT deny to disclose the names considered for Chief of CIC   M K Gupta   What if the Nodal Agency to promote transprancy is not transparent itself and that too, on the appointments of Chief of Transprancy Panel i.e. CIC?  The Deptt. of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has denied information about the names of the short listed candidates considered for the post of Chief and selection criteria in Sept. 2010 when Mr. A. N.Tiwari was selected.  The FAA, Smt. Anuradha S. Chagti has stated that no documents are available on these points.    Interestingly, FAA has not given any reason about the non-existence of these documents i.e. are they missing or else and the reply is unconvincing.  To an RTI query by raised by M K Gupta, DoPT has also denied information about the shortlisting of other candidates too.    These were the queries which were also raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from the Govt. (DoPT) in the case of selection of Mr. P J Thomas as Chief Vigilance Commissoner who was shown the door by the Court for pending chargesheet against him.   Now, he has filed the second appeal to the CIC for information on the aforesaid points as he feels that atleast information on the names considered for the post must be disclosed.   Views are solicited from the expert members on the issue whether DoPT is right in denying the information.