Abhimanyu is right
You have lot of experience
Forget it and devote time for upliftment of common man
Regards
Dr JN Sharma
On 11/3/10, Abhimanyu <who.will.file.rti@gmail.com> wrote:
> wajahat sir .
> as long as you keep replying they will keep asking you useless questions .
>
> stop replying on the subject and start discussing usefull topics .
>
> regards abhimanyu
>
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:59 AM, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote:
>
>> But I have received not even a telephone call, let alone a letter, from
>> anyone on the subject. What a fruitless discussion. Is there no work to be
>> done?
>> Wajahat
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dr. Jagnarain Sharma" <dr.jagnarainsharma@gmail.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010 5:45 am
>> Subject: Re: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC challenges
>> notice
>> by CIC
>> To: rti_india@googlegroups.com
>>
>> > Dear all
>> > Let the matter
>> > be decided by new CIC, Mr AN Tewari, who is
>> > competent enough to deal himself with such complaints, if any pending
>> > against Mr Wazahat or against any one else in the office
>> > of CIC.I
>> > feel that Mr. Wazahat can gracefully be requested to send reply
>> > to Mr
>> > A.N.Tewari, the CIC directly, instead of sending replies to any
>> > one in
>> > personal capacity, because grievance with CIC on the matter of RTI,
>> > must be attended by the office of CIC and not from any individual,
>> > like Mr Wazahat.
>> > Regards
>> > DR. JN SHARMA
>> >
>> > ADVOCATE/HUMANRIGHTS/RTI ACTIVIST
>> >
>> > On 11/3/10, wajahat <whabibullah@nic.in> wrote:
>> > > Parsimonios? You are raising new issues and seeking to have an
>> > answer before
>> > > raising them! I was simply replying to your remark that the
>> > President had
>> > > not seen my letter. Besides, there is no truth in your remarks
>> > re AN Tiwari
>> > > Wajahat
>> > >
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
>> > > Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 10:50 pm
>> > > Subject: [RTI INDIA] Re: Fwd: [HumJanenge] Former CIC
>> > challenges notice by
>> > > CIC
>> > > To: "RTI India : Right to Information, CIC"
>> > <rti_india@googlegroups.com>>
>> > >> 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