regards
On 3/4/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181
No comments:
Post a Comment