Denial to provide information under rti on the grounds of 8h

"I also believe that the candidate does not have NOC (or proof of applying through proper channel) from his previous institute which is mandatory for government jobs."

The presumption is of no universal application. What is the job involved? Who is the recruiting agency. Please post complete facts.

of course, you can appeal as to denial of information. However, the posting suggests a more substantial issue. Even otherwise, if an aggrieved party you seek judicial review of your non-selection before the Administrative Tribunal/High Court.

Did you confirm / ascertain and certify in the application ( under the provisions of RTI Act) that the information / document sought do not fall under Section 8 of the Act ?

If so, file an appeal to First Appellate Authority of the CPIO / SPIO / PIO.as per rule.

Thank you for your reply. Here are some details to your questions:

What is the job involved? : Faculty at an Institute under the Ministry of Forests and environment.

Who is the recruiting agency? The same institute

Please post complete facts. As per MHRD norms that the institute is obligated to follow, the eligible candidate must have a minimum of 6 years of experience post Ph.D. PLUS a minimum of three years of experience at a grade pay of 12. However, the selected candidate has only 4.5 years of post-PhD experience and has never worked at grade pay 12. It is a clear case of ineligibility, and the institute too understands it. However, it seems that the director of the institute does not want to lose his face by accepting the blunder and is just dragging the investigation.

We have been pursuing this case with the institute and BOG for the last 5 months, with the hope that this case would be resolved at the institute level. However, it doesn't seem to be happening. We also had an apprehension that going to the judiciary would be time-consuming and expensive and hence had kept that option as last resort.

Never thought that our institutions and their custodians are so corrupt that they won't act on such an open and shut case.

We are mentally troubled at the injustice and also the ongoing cover-up at the institute level. 

We are thinking to approach CVC, but it seems CAT/high court would only be our hope at this stage. We did not do so earlier as we live in Bhopal and CAT/high court in MP is in Jabalpur. 

I hope these details help to explain the facts and our situation. Any help would be much appreciated. 

 

If there is a mandatory regulation, it has to be implemented or a superior must order in writing for such violations with such reasons.

The document you have been seeking is given by a college and not by a person and there is no invasion of privacy involved in the transaction.

Any violation to laid down rules and regulations is not in the larger public interest.

There are no exemptions in RTI Act for that information which is solicited on larger public interest namely following a laid down law, as one deserving candidate might have lost an opportunity.

You can escalate the issue through online grievance (portal: pgrms) to University/UGC and MHRD to build up pressure as immediately as possible.  You can certainly get justice from UGC/MHRD/University without spending a single paisa.

Go for the first appeal against denial by Public Information Officer, stating that PIO ought to not only deny information stating such exemption clause 8 (1) (h) and with justification.  Without justification, denial was treated as deliberate and malafide in each and every CIC decision.  You can also state that the information you have been seeking is a letter from the college and there is no invasion of privacy of any individual and that document was collected as a mandatory requirement for an appointment and not on trust.  Also, inform that the Supreme court has well-defined those that amount to personal information, and a NOC  given by college by any stretch of imagination can not be treated as an invasion of privacy.

Thank you, this is very helpful.

As director of the institute as well as the Board of Governers have failed to resolve the matter in five months 9DOPT guidelines mandates resolution in six weeks), it appears that the judicial intervention is the only option.

I am amazed to see that people can act against the rule of law and are totally unafraid to correct their mistakes, thinking that common people would hardly choose the complications of going to judiciary.

We have also reached the minister. While minister's office has issues a show cause notice to the director, he is sitting over it for last 2 months. We will follow up on that again.

We also plan to reach out to CVC and PMO before we head to CAT/High court.

If this is the state of our executives, it does not bode well.

Is there any agency or NGO that can help us to sue the institute and government for first selecting the ineligible candidate and then failing to act timely? 

Thanks again. 

To my knowledge except for HC, no one can provide any remedy in your case.  I am aware of one case of one 97 years lonely lady belonging to below poverty line status and I am associated with it since 2007 (14 years plus) and still, it was not resolved and no one has paid any attention to finding out the truth through hearing or peeping casually into documents..   The issue was a PSU and the departments involved in these 13 years was the Vigilance Officer of PSU, Police, Committee of Petitions  (Loksabha) who paid a visit to Chennai for study in 2011, Lokpal, Ministry controlling of that PSU, DOPT,  Central Vigilance Commission, NCDRC, CIC, District Legal Services Authority.  The complaints were on public documents reporting fraud with forgery for Rs.40cr, falsification, and fabrication of records. The complainant expired after filing a complaint before Serious Fraud Office in 2021 These depts., can not take any decision and can be influenced by any MP of the ruling party.  The remedy is always through HC if the victim is lucky.   Do not be certain even in Courts you can get justice, as those persons can manage anyone to suit their requirement.  You feel great if they do not attribute motives to your efforts finally.

Finally, RTI is just a journey for getting evidence and the destination of remedy is always through court alone.

If your application filed under RTI act was rejected citing the provisions of section 8 of the ct, you may prefer an appeal against it before the 1st appellate authority and follow it up to CIC.

For the irregularity in the recruitment you may submit a complaint to CVC and request for proper probe and necessary legal action against the corrupt officials who recruited this ineligible candidate for the post.

Before that you may first ascertain the eligibility conditions and also confirm if there was any violation of law in the recruitment process by scrutinising the documents procured through RTI act.  

To pursue the matter through high court, you cannot file a case an individual because you are not the aggrieved person as an individual, the irregular recruitment is a loss to exchequer and corrupt practice of the corrupt official defrauding the government machinery, therefore the institute  or the state only can take necessary action or approach high court to cancel the recruitment that was done fraudulently.

You can file a PIL about this and seek court's intervention to rectify error by a direction to the concerned department in this connection.

The original  posting and subsequent clarifications suggests a confused approach. The original posting reveals the grievance to be the denial of RTI information as to "I also believe that the candidate does not have NOC (or proof of applying through proper channel) from his previous institute which is mandatory for government jobs."

However, the subsequent clarification places the issue in a different context: "As per MHRD norms that the institute is obligated to follow, the eligible candidate must have a minimum of 6 years of experience post Ph.D. PLUS a minimum of three years of experience at a grade pay of 12. However, the selected candidate has only 4.5 years of post-PhD experience and has never worked at grade pay 12"

This clarification only confuses. Which is the information he had sought under RTI?

Moreover, the querist is ill informed of the elementary aspects. What does he mean by "grade pay of 12". Grade pay is no longer in vogue. And there was never ever a "grade pay of 12".

It is all the more disappointing that the querist has overshadowed the inchoate facts with hasty opinions such as  -" the institution has failed to resolve the matter even after 5 months of the complaint despite this being an open and shut case with all the facts well documented"

"It is a clear case of ineligibility, and the institute too understands it. However, it seems that the director of the institute does not want to lose his face by accepting the blunder and is just dragging the investigation"

"Never thought that our institutions and their custodians are so corrupt that they won't act on such an open and shut case."

"I am amazed to see that people can act against the rule of law and are totally unafraid to correct their mistakes, thinking that common people would hardly choose the complications of going to judiciary."

Curiously the initial query has been "Denial to provide information under rti on the grounds of 8h" but the issue in conclusion is "Is there any agency or NGO that can help us to sue the institute and government for first selecting the ineligible candidate and then failing to act timely?"

It is impossible to make any meaningful suggestion to the posting which has been rendered incomprehensible. The author is requested to post simple facts pertaining to alleged wrongful selection and appointment and how and why he is aggrieved. Kindly avoid subjective opinions.



 

Thanks for your reply.

This is a complex issue, and it would take a while to understand the issue. Let me give more details with the hope that it would clarify. I am replying to specific points:

"This clarification only confuses. Which is the information he had sought under RTI?"

There should not be any confusion. This case is of the selection of a candidate who: 1. Fails eligibility requirements as per MHRD norms, and 2: has also not applied through proper channel, nor submitted NOC.

The RTI for ineligibility has been received which clearly establishess that the candidate fails on the eligibility parameter. So the ineligibility is now a documented fact, and not a mere allegation.

However, to our request for the NOC document, the institute did not provide the document giving the reason for rejection under 8h. And that is the context of my earlier question. 

Hope this helps.

"Moreover, the querist is ill-informed of the elementary aspects. What does he mean by "grade pay of 12". Grade pay is no longer in vogue. And there was never ever a "grade pay of 12""

Sir, kindly refer this document: Possibly I should have mentioned "academic level". Apologies for that, but one well versed with academic pay structure can surely understand what one is saying if they are saying grade pay 12.

https://www.iitk.ac.in/eco/data/7th-CPC-Order-CFTIs.pdf

After 7 pay revisions, the government has a" Academic level 12" which amounts to the academic grade pay of 8000.

"It is all the more disappointing that the querist has overshadowed the inchoate facts with hasty opinions such as..."

I am not a legal person, but what has been mentioned are facts or conclusions based on the events. For example:

"Failure to resolve within 5 months": This is a fact, as the complaint to the institute director and BOG was made on 14th January with follow-up prayers. DOPT guideline says that such query should be resolved within 6 weeks, and all government institutions under the ministry are expected to adhere to this guidance.

"Clear case of ineligibility": This is again a fact (as explained earlier). 

"Never thought that our institutions and their custodians are so corrupt.....": First selecting an ineligible candidate and thereby committing fraud, and then delaying the investigation is tantamount to a denial of justice. To a commoner, this is a clear failure of institutional grievance resolution machinery, and any concerned person would look at possible complicity and corruption.

"I am amazed to see that people can act against the rule of law and are totally unafraid to correct their mistakes, thinking that common people would hardly choose the complications of going to judiciary."

Isn't this what actually happened in this case? No one has to establish anything. The ineligibility in question is a documented fact, and still if institutions and their custodians turn a blind eye, what is the message? This is also a fact that the common person is afraid to go to the judiciary precisely because they get dragged in lengthy and costly litigations that keeps dragging for years making many complainants bankrupt.

In fact in my case too, the same thing happened. We did not go to the judiciary initially because we were afraid that it's complicated. Had our judiciary been providing timely support, we could have gone to them...of course after exhausting the institutional grievance resolution mechanism. 

It also appears that government servants also know about this apprehension of people like us, and hence they dare to exploit the system without worrying about consequences.

I just thought to address the points and also show what I am feeling at this stage as an aggrieved person fighting against those with power.  This is a case that should have been resolved in a few hours. Instead, it just keeps dragging because perpetrators are not afraid of the consequences of thus public fraud.

What you also should consider is the fact that the ministry issued the director a letter asking for examining the matter and providing them an action taken report immediately. It has been two months, and there is no reply. How a common person like me should take this...that my case will be addressed only if I am a legal luminary. The system has failed. And that is sad. That's why in this country, countless victims still avoid taking legal help, and those who do, many of them get disappointments.

Thanks.