Dear fellow activists & mediapersons,
About ten days ago, DoPT quietly released India’s draft whistle-blowers act, officially called “The Public Interest Disclosure And Protection To Persons Making The Disclosures Bill, 2010” into the public domain, and requested feedback before September 30. I think most of us failed to notice this and respond, because one is not seeing any discussion happening on this on any forum.
To form an informed opinion, one needs to study this Act for at least 3-4 hours. To make this easier, here is a detailed section-by-section analysis with colour-coding & highlights: http://www.box.net/shared/355pdqp704
Also see official release of this Bill with DoPT’s covering letter: http://www.box.net/shared/suqa2l3n3y
Please email your responses to vkvkutty@nic.in
Address letters to:
Shri V.K. Velukutty,
Deputy Secretary (V-Ill),
Department of Personnel and Training,
Room No. 10-8/11, North Block,
New Delhi-110001.
Please give us your feedback, based on which we will send forceful representations to DoPT.
Warmly,
Krish
98215 88114
For More Info Log on to www.rtigroup.org
|
Subscribe to RTI Group | |
| Browse Archives at groups.google.com | ||
Showing posts with label DOPT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DOPT. Show all posts
Monday, September 6, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
RTI replies from PMO & DoPT betray rajneeti in Info. Commissioners’ selection
30th June 2010: 22 Information Commissioners from across the country will retire in the next few months. Out of them, 11 are Chief Information Commissioners.
So many posts will fall vacant. What should be the process of their appointment? The law is silent on that. Barring prescribing the composition of a selection committee (consisting of PM, Leader of Opposition and one Cabinet Minister), the law does not lay down the procedure that this committee should follow to invite names and process them.
Documents obtained under RTI from DOPT and PMO by Arvind Kejriwal reveal how intense lobbying takes place before every appointment to the posts of Central Information Commissioners.
Ravi Shankar Singh is a journalist with The Tribune. His name was recommended by none other than Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Chief Minister of Haryana himself through a personal letter written to the Prime Minister. Hooda writes – “He is well known to me for the last more than twenty years. … I would be highly obliged if you kindly consider his name for the post of Deputy Information Commission in the Central Information Commission.”
Ravi Shankar’s name was also recommended by Kumari Selja, Minister of State and two MPs namely Naveen Jindal and Dr Karan Singh.
Likewise, 7 MPs recommended the name of Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony.
Interestingly, neither Ravi Shankar nor Dr Anthony’s names were even put up to the selection committee, which comprises of Prime Minsiter, Leader of Opposition and a Cabinet Minister.
Before every set of appointments, the word spreads around. Several people either apply themselves or are recommended by others. Recommendations are found to have been made by very influential people including Chief Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Supreme Court Bar Council etc.
The names for selection are put up to selection committee through an agenda note. The agenda note is prepared by DOPT. However, none of these recommendations or applications was ever put up to the selection committee.
Interestingly, the names which made it to agenda note and who were finally selected, never applied nor were they ever recommended by anyone, according to records provided by DOPT and PMO.
For instance, in August 2008, the selection committee cleared the names of four people in its meeting on 27th August 2008, namely Annapurna Dixit, M L Sharma, S N Mishra and Shailesh Gandhi. Before this meeting, the following applications/recommendations were received by the PMO and DOPT:
· President of Bar Council of India recommended the name of Sudhanshu Ranjan (a journalist) to the Prime Minister and DOPT.
· 7 MPs names, Nakul Das Rai (MP), Shivanand Tiwari (MP), Sukhdeo Paswan (MP), Rajniti Prasad (MP), Ganesh Prasad Singh (MP), Lalhming Lian (MP) and Alok Kumar Mehta (MP) recommended the name of Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony.
· Bhupinder Singh Hooda, CM Haryana, Naveen Jindal (MP), Dr Karan Singh (MP) and Kumari Selja, MOS recommended the name of Ravi Shankar Singh, a journalist
However, the agenda note prepared by DOPT did not contain any of the above names. The agenda note was prepared by S K Sarkar, the then Joint Secretary in DOPT. He included the name of his own boss S N Mishra (the then DOPT Secretary), and the names of Mrs Annapurna Dixit, Ashok K Mohapatra, R B Shreekumar, M L Sharma and Shailesh Gandhi. Whereas Shailesh Gandhi’s name was proposed by several RTI activists through an open letter to the Government, but where did other names come from? According to records, none of them applied for these posts, nor were their names recommended by anyone. This means that something is happening outside the files. Who called up these people and asked them for their CVs? Why were only these people contacted?
Several questions arise. Firstly, how were the people like Ravi Shankar Singh, Sudhanshu Ranjan and Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony found unfit and not even put up to selection committee? Who did their assessment and on what basis? Who decided that these names should not be put up to the selection committee?
The agenda note is prepared by DOPT. Obviously someone in DOPT decided to reject these names. Does DOPT have these powers under RTI Act to reject names? No. DOPT merely acts as secretariat to the selection committee. It neither has the powers to reject anyone nor select anyone.
Next question is - how did the bio-datas of S N Mishra, Annapurna Dixit, Ashok Mohapatra, R B Shreekumar and M L Sharma make it to the file? How did these names make it to agenda note? How was it decided to include these names and not others?
It is surprising that the names recommended by MPs, Chief Ministers and Cabinet Ministers are not even put up to the selection committee. But some other names make it to agenda note.
Interestingly, S N Mishra was the then DOPT Secretary. All this was happening under his nose. He shamelessly includes his own name in the agenda note and excludes those of others.
It appears that the DOPT has become de-facto selection committee and selection committee provided in the law has been reduced to an endorsement committee. The selection committee merely endorses the names put up to it.
In its first meeting on 5th October 2005, 5 names were put up to selection committee and it cleared all the five names. In its next meeting on 27th August 2008, six names were put up and it cleared four of them. In the next meeting on 6th April 2009, only one name was put up and the same was cleared. In the meeting on 25th August 2009, four names were put up and it selected two of them. DOPT, by rejecting all names and presenting a very short list of names, creates a situation of fait accompli for the selection committee, wherein the committee almost endorses what is presented to them.
For instance, Omita Paul, who is known to be quite close to Pranab Mukherjee and has worked with him for many years, was working as Advisor to him before last Parliamentary elections. After the announcement of elections, the selection committee met specially on 6.4.09 to clear her name for the post of Information Commissioner. Only one name was presented to the selection committee and the committee cleared that name.
Interestingly, this was done in violation of model code of conduct. Though the Joint Secretary, in his notings, warned his seniors that model code of conduct was in operation and permission from Election Commission would be required, however, the permission was never sought. One wonders what was the hurry for appointing her? Omita joined on 13th May. Interestingly, as soon as UPA came to power, Omita resigned within a month on 26th June and went back and joined Pranab Mukherjee again.
What emerges from all this is that DOPT has become de facto selection or rejection committee. It rejects the names of all those who either apply or are recommended by others. It then prepares its own list of names (sources of which are unknown) and includes in this list, the names of its own bosses. The selection committee provided in RTI Act has been reduced to an endorsement committee of DOPT.
What does the law say? The law prescribes a selection committee consisting of the PM, Leader of Opposition and one Cabinet Minister. Then it says that the incumbent should be a person of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. He should not be a Member of Parliament or Member of any Legislature or hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.
The law does not provide for any procedure how nominations would be invited and how would they be processed. DOPT had a duty to make rules under section 27 of RTI Act to lay down procedures. However, DOPT has not made any rules so far.
Selection Committee meeting on 5th Oct 2005:
Who applied?
1. G C Srivastava, IAS (Retd) – he applied himself.
2. Shri Lakshmi Chand, IAS (Retd) - – he applied himself.
3. Shri R Ganesan, (IPoS:69), Secy & DG, Chairman, Postal Service Board, Department of Posts – he applied himself.
4. Shri G Mohal Kumar, (IPoS:69), Member (Personnel), Postal Service Board, Deptt of Posts – he applied himself.
5. Shri P R Devi Prasad (IES:82) – he applied himself.
6. Shri K Jaikumar, Dir (IT) in D/o AR&PG no specific post mentioned – he applied himself.
7. Rameshbhai’s name recommended by Nirmala Deshpande, MP to the PM
8. Smt Neena Ranjan, Secy, Ministry of Culture – she applied herself.
9. Prof Akhtarul Wasey (Dean, Jamia Milia Islamia)
10. Pradeep Kumar Balmuchu (trade union leader from Jharkhand)
11. Nripendra Mishra
12. Mohan Kanda (Chief Secretary to Government of AP)
13. Dinesh Chandra Gupta (former Finance Secretary)
14. Prof Dr B K Chandrashekhar (former Education Minister, Karnataka)
15. Akhtar Majeed (Dean, Hamdard University)
Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:
(None of the above names were put up)
1. Wajahat Habibullah
2. Dr O P Kejariwal
3. A N Tiwari
4. Prof M M Ansari
5. Padma Balasubramanian
Names selected by Selection committee:
All the above five names were selected.
Selection Committee meeting on 27th August 2008:
Who applied?
1. Sudhanshu Ranjan (a journalist) recommended by the President of Bar Council of India to PM and DOPT
2. Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony recommended by Nakul Das Rai (MP), Shivanand Tiwari (MP), Sukhdeo Paswan (MP), Rajniti Prasad (MP), Ganesh Prasad Singh (MP), Lalhming Lian (MP) and Alok Kumar Mehta (MP)
3. Ravi Shankar Singh (a journalist with The Tribune) recommended by Sh Bhupinder Singh Hooda , CM Haryana; Naveen Jindal (MP); Dr Karan Singh (MP) and Kumari Selja, MOS
Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:
(None of the above names were put up)
1. Mrs Annapurna Dixit
2. Ashok K Mohapatra
3. R B Shreekumar
4. M L Sharma
5. Shailesh Gandhi
6. S N Mishra
Names selected by Selection committee:
1. Shailesh Gandhi
2. S N Mishra
3. Annapurna Dixit
4. M L Sharma
Selection Committee meeting on 6th April 2009:
Who applied?
Meeting held suddenly. No one came to know about it. No names found on the file.
Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:
1. Omita Paul
Names selected by Selection committee:
1. Omita Paul
Selection Committee meeting on 25th August 2009:
Who applied?
1. Smt Sushma Singh, Secretary (I&B) recommended by her own Minister Anand Sharma, MOS (External Affairs and I&B) to the PM.
2. Dr C V Ananda Bose recommended by Vayalar Ravi, Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs.
3. Saroj Bala, Member (R), CBDT directly applies herself.
4. Mr Choubey recommended by M Veerappa Moily. Mr Moily also writes to Mrs Sonia Gandhi.
5. Adm Pradeep Kaushiva recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
6. Lt Gen Mahajan recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
7. Amitav Tripathi recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
8. Neelam Deo recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
9. Maja Daruwala recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
10. Krishan M Sahni recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
11. Chitra Chopra recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
12. Suman Dubey recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
13. Ishtiaq Hussain recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
14. Sudhanshu Ranjan, a journalist recommended by Sadanand Singh, former Chairperson, Bihar Legislative Assembly. He writes both to Mrs Sonia Gandhi and to the PM.
Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:
(Only Sushma Singh’s name was picked up from the above list. Why only Sushma Singh?)
1. Deepak Sandhu
2. Sushma Singh
3. Mahendra Kumavat
4. R P Agarwal
Names selected by Selection committee:
1. Deepak Sandhu
2. Sushma Singh
==================================
Krish
98215 88114
So many posts will fall vacant. What should be the process of their appointment? The law is silent on that. Barring prescribing the composition of a selection committee (consisting of PM, Leader of Opposition and one Cabinet Minister), the law does not lay down the procedure that this committee should follow to invite names and process them.
Documents obtained under RTI from DOPT and PMO by Arvind Kejriwal reveal how intense lobbying takes place before every appointment to the posts of Central Information Commissioners.
Ravi Shankar Singh is a journalist with The Tribune. His name was recommended by none other than Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Chief Minister of Haryana himself through a personal letter written to the Prime Minister. Hooda writes – “He is well known to me for the last more than twenty years. … I would be highly obliged if you kindly consider his name for the post of Deputy Information Commission in the Central Information Commission.”
Ravi Shankar’s name was also recommended by Kumari Selja, Minister of State and two MPs namely Naveen Jindal and Dr Karan Singh.
Likewise, 7 MPs recommended the name of Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony.
Interestingly, neither Ravi Shankar nor Dr Anthony’s names were even put up to the selection committee, which comprises of Prime Minsiter, Leader of Opposition and a Cabinet Minister.
Before every set of appointments, the word spreads around. Several people either apply themselves or are recommended by others. Recommendations are found to have been made by very influential people including Chief Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Supreme Court Bar Council etc.
The names for selection are put up to selection committee through an agenda note. The agenda note is prepared by DOPT. However, none of these recommendations or applications was ever put up to the selection committee.
Interestingly, the names which made it to agenda note and who were finally selected, never applied nor were they ever recommended by anyone, according to records provided by DOPT and PMO.
For instance, in August 2008, the selection committee cleared the names of four people in its meeting on 27th August 2008, namely Annapurna Dixit, M L Sharma, S N Mishra and Shailesh Gandhi. Before this meeting, the following applications/recommendations were received by the PMO and DOPT:
· President of Bar Council of India recommended the name of Sudhanshu Ranjan (a journalist) to the Prime Minister and DOPT.
· 7 MPs names, Nakul Das Rai (MP), Shivanand Tiwari (MP), Sukhdeo Paswan (MP), Rajniti Prasad (MP), Ganesh Prasad Singh (MP), Lalhming Lian (MP) and Alok Kumar Mehta (MP) recommended the name of Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony.
· Bhupinder Singh Hooda, CM Haryana, Naveen Jindal (MP), Dr Karan Singh (MP) and Kumari Selja, MOS recommended the name of Ravi Shankar Singh, a journalist
However, the agenda note prepared by DOPT did not contain any of the above names. The agenda note was prepared by S K Sarkar, the then Joint Secretary in DOPT. He included the name of his own boss S N Mishra (the then DOPT Secretary), and the names of Mrs Annapurna Dixit, Ashok K Mohapatra, R B Shreekumar, M L Sharma and Shailesh Gandhi. Whereas Shailesh Gandhi’s name was proposed by several RTI activists through an open letter to the Government, but where did other names come from? According to records, none of them applied for these posts, nor were their names recommended by anyone. This means that something is happening outside the files. Who called up these people and asked them for their CVs? Why were only these people contacted?
Several questions arise. Firstly, how were the people like Ravi Shankar Singh, Sudhanshu Ranjan and Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony found unfit and not even put up to selection committee? Who did their assessment and on what basis? Who decided that these names should not be put up to the selection committee?
The agenda note is prepared by DOPT. Obviously someone in DOPT decided to reject these names. Does DOPT have these powers under RTI Act to reject names? No. DOPT merely acts as secretariat to the selection committee. It neither has the powers to reject anyone nor select anyone.
Next question is - how did the bio-datas of S N Mishra, Annapurna Dixit, Ashok Mohapatra, R B Shreekumar and M L Sharma make it to the file? How did these names make it to agenda note? How was it decided to include these names and not others?
It is surprising that the names recommended by MPs, Chief Ministers and Cabinet Ministers are not even put up to the selection committee. But some other names make it to agenda note.
Interestingly, S N Mishra was the then DOPT Secretary. All this was happening under his nose. He shamelessly includes his own name in the agenda note and excludes those of others.
It appears that the DOPT has become de-facto selection committee and selection committee provided in the law has been reduced to an endorsement committee. The selection committee merely endorses the names put up to it.
In its first meeting on 5th October 2005, 5 names were put up to selection committee and it cleared all the five names. In its next meeting on 27th August 2008, six names were put up and it cleared four of them. In the next meeting on 6th April 2009, only one name was put up and the same was cleared. In the meeting on 25th August 2009, four names were put up and it selected two of them. DOPT, by rejecting all names and presenting a very short list of names, creates a situation of fait accompli for the selection committee, wherein the committee almost endorses what is presented to them.
For instance, Omita Paul, who is known to be quite close to Pranab Mukherjee and has worked with him for many years, was working as Advisor to him before last Parliamentary elections. After the announcement of elections, the selection committee met specially on 6.4.09 to clear her name for the post of Information Commissioner. Only one name was presented to the selection committee and the committee cleared that name.
Interestingly, this was done in violation of model code of conduct. Though the Joint Secretary, in his notings, warned his seniors that model code of conduct was in operation and permission from Election Commission would be required, however, the permission was never sought. One wonders what was the hurry for appointing her? Omita joined on 13th May. Interestingly, as soon as UPA came to power, Omita resigned within a month on 26th June and went back and joined Pranab Mukherjee again.
What emerges from all this is that DOPT has become de facto selection or rejection committee. It rejects the names of all those who either apply or are recommended by others. It then prepares its own list of names (sources of which are unknown) and includes in this list, the names of its own bosses. The selection committee provided in RTI Act has been reduced to an endorsement committee of DOPT.
What does the law say? The law prescribes a selection committee consisting of the PM, Leader of Opposition and one Cabinet Minister. Then it says that the incumbent should be a person of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. He should not be a Member of Parliament or Member of any Legislature or hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.
The law does not provide for any procedure how nominations would be invited and how would they be processed. DOPT had a duty to make rules under section 27 of RTI Act to lay down procedures. However, DOPT has not made any rules so far.
Selection Committee meeting on 5th Oct 2005:
Who applied?
1. G C Srivastava, IAS (Retd) – he applied himself.
2. Shri Lakshmi Chand, IAS (Retd) - – he applied himself.
3. Shri R Ganesan, (IPoS:69), Secy & DG, Chairman, Postal Service Board, Department of Posts – he applied himself.
4. Shri G Mohal Kumar, (IPoS:69), Member (Personnel), Postal Service Board, Deptt of Posts – he applied himself.
5. Shri P R Devi Prasad (IES:82) – he applied himself.
6. Shri K Jaikumar, Dir (IT) in D/o AR&PG no specific post mentioned – he applied himself.
7. Rameshbhai’s name recommended by Nirmala Deshpande, MP to the PM
8. Smt Neena Ranjan, Secy, Ministry of Culture – she applied herself.
9. Prof Akhtarul Wasey (Dean, Jamia Milia Islamia)
10. Pradeep Kumar Balmuchu (trade union leader from Jharkhand)
11. Nripendra Mishra
12. Mohan Kanda (Chief Secretary to Government of AP)
13. Dinesh Chandra Gupta (former Finance Secretary)
14. Prof Dr B K Chandrashekhar (former Education Minister, Karnataka)
15. Akhtar Majeed (Dean, Hamdard University)
Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:
(None of the above names were put up)
1. Wajahat Habibullah
2. Dr O P Kejariwal
3. A N Tiwari
4. Prof M M Ansari
5. Padma Balasubramanian
Names selected by Selection committee:
All the above five names were selected.
Selection Committee meeting on 27th August 2008:
Who applied?
1. Sudhanshu Ranjan (a journalist) recommended by the President of Bar Council of India to PM and DOPT
2. Dr Krishna Kabir Anthony recommended by Nakul Das Rai (MP), Shivanand Tiwari (MP), Sukhdeo Paswan (MP), Rajniti Prasad (MP), Ganesh Prasad Singh (MP), Lalhming Lian (MP) and Alok Kumar Mehta (MP)
3. Ravi Shankar Singh (a journalist with The Tribune) recommended by Sh Bhupinder Singh Hooda , CM Haryana; Naveen Jindal (MP); Dr Karan Singh (MP) and Kumari Selja, MOS
Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:
(None of the above names were put up)
1. Mrs Annapurna Dixit
2. Ashok K Mohapatra
3. R B Shreekumar
4. M L Sharma
5. Shailesh Gandhi
6. S N Mishra
Names selected by Selection committee:
1. Shailesh Gandhi
2. S N Mishra
3. Annapurna Dixit
4. M L Sharma
Selection Committee meeting on 6th April 2009:
Who applied?
Meeting held suddenly. No one came to know about it. No names found on the file.
Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:
1. Omita Paul
Names selected by Selection committee:
1. Omita Paul
Selection Committee meeting on 25th August 2009:
Who applied?
1. Smt Sushma Singh, Secretary (I&B) recommended by her own Minister Anand Sharma, MOS (External Affairs and I&B) to the PM.
2. Dr C V Ananda Bose recommended by Vayalar Ravi, Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs.
3. Saroj Bala, Member (R), CBDT directly applies herself.
4. Mr Choubey recommended by M Veerappa Moily. Mr Moily also writes to Mrs Sonia Gandhi.
5. Adm Pradeep Kaushiva recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
6. Lt Gen Mahajan recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
7. Amitav Tripathi recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
8. Neelam Deo recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
9. Maja Daruwala recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
10. Krishan M Sahni recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
11. Chitra Chopra recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
12. Suman Dubey recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
13. Ishtiaq Hussain recommended by Wajahat Habibullah
14. Sudhanshu Ranjan, a journalist recommended by Sadanand Singh, former Chairperson, Bihar Legislative Assembly. He writes both to Mrs Sonia Gandhi and to the PM.
Names which were put up to the selection committee through agenda note:
(Only Sushma Singh’s name was picked up from the above list. Why only Sushma Singh?)
1. Deepak Sandhu
2. Sushma Singh
3. Mahendra Kumavat
4. R P Agarwal
Names selected by Selection committee:
1. Deepak Sandhu
2. Sushma Singh
==================================
Krish
98215 88114
No transparency in selection of information commissioners: Arvind Kejriwal
Names received by DoPT do not make it to the selection committee
Danish Raza | June 30 2010
The applications received by the department of personnel and training (DoPT) for the post of information commissioners (ICs) do not make it to the selection committee comprising of the prime minister, leader of the opposition and a cabinet minister. This, despite the fact that majority of the names received by the DoPT are duly recommended by the chief ministers, cabinet ministers and MPs. The names for selection are put before the selection committee through an agenda note prepared by the DoPT. Noted RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal obtained this information through RTI applications filed in the PMO and DoPT.
“What emerges is that the DoPT has become de facto selection or rejection committee.
For complete news please visit:
http://governancenow.com/gov-next/rti/no-transparency-selection-information-commissioners-rti-activists
Danish Raza | June 30 2010
The applications received by the department of personnel and training (DoPT) for the post of information commissioners (ICs) do not make it to the selection committee comprising of the prime minister, leader of the opposition and a cabinet minister. This, despite the fact that majority of the names received by the DoPT are duly recommended by the chief ministers, cabinet ministers and MPs. The names for selection are put before the selection committee through an agenda note prepared by the DoPT. Noted RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal obtained this information through RTI applications filed in the PMO and DoPT.
“What emerges is that the DoPT has become de facto selection or rejection committee.
For complete news please visit:
http://governancenow.com/gov-next/rti/no-transparency-selection-information-commissioners-rti-activists
Friday, June 11, 2010
RTI reveals how babus steal ‘power’ from civil society
Mumbai, 11 June: Opaque and unaccountable selection of Information Commissioners is the tip of the iceberg. Girish Mittal’s RTI applications are veiling a more widespread scam being carried on in broad daylight. There are literally hundreds of posts under various central ministries, theoretically meant for ‘eminent citizens’ from all walks of life, but in practice available only to political cronies, retiring bureaucrats and other insiders in the corridors of power. Ironically, various legal provisions and rules are cited as justification for such patently lawless appointments; the truth is that many of these legal provisions have no criteria for identifying suitable candidates. The appointment of 14 members of National Committee for Promotion of Social and Economic Welfare is a classic example of this.
I. Let us see how such posts are legitimately supposed to be filled.
A. What does the Constitution say? Article 16 is about Equality of Opportunity in Matters of Public Employment. It says, “There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
B. What is DoPT’s acknowledged role? As per DoPT’s induction material 2008: “The role of the Department of Personnel & Training can be conceptually divided into two parts, In its large nodal role, it acts as the formulator of policy and the watch-dog of the Government ensuring that certain accepted standards and norms, as laid down by it, are followed by all Ministries/Departments, in the recruitment, regulation of service conditions, posting/transfers, deputation of personnel as well as other related issues. Towards this end, guidelines are issued by it for the benefit of all Ministries/Departments and it monitors the implementation of these guidelines. It also advises all organizations of the Central Government on issues of personnel Management. At a more immediate level, the Department has the direct responsibility of being the cadre controlling authority for the IAS and the three Secretariat Services in the Central Secretariat. The Department also operates the Central Staffing Scheme under which suitable officers from All India Services and Group ‘A’ Central Services are selected and then placed in posts at the level of Deputy Secretary/Director and Joint Secretary, on the basis of tenure deputation. The Department also deals with cases of appointment to posts of Chairman, Managing Director, full-time functional Director/Member of the Board of Management of various Public Sector Undertakings/ Enterprises, Corporations, Banks and financial institutions. It also deals with the assignment of Indian experts to various developing countries.”
C. What do DoPT’s guidelines say?
Point 3(1)(i) of Search Committees guidelines 1994 says, “A Search Committee can be constituted only for posts that do not fall within UPSC’s purview. Point 3(1)(ii) says, “It is to be kept in mind that as a rule, appointments in government are to be made on the basis of open advertisement. Therefore, proper advertisement of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment is an essential requirement. There may, however, be situations where advertisement itself may not result in adequate response for recruitment to similar posts which require specialized scientific/technical knowledge and experience. It is only in these situations that Search Committee should normally be appointed to locate suitable persons with the desired qualifications and experience to augment the response to the advertisement.
Further, the introductory paragraph of Search Committee guidelines ‘07 clarifies, “These instructions are primarily applicable to posts in the Government but also apply mutatis mutandis in the case of posts in autonomous / statutory organizations.”
II. Let us see the Information
unearthed by RTI applications.
Activist Girish Mittal & his father Kishanlal filed RTI applications with several authorities under various central ministries asking about selection procedures.
a) RTI application to NCPSEW (National Committee for Promotion of Social and Economic Welfare) under Revenue Department of Finance Ministry
Information sought: Minutes of meetings held for selection of members of National Committee for Promotion of Social and Economic Welfare
Reply given: “There is no provision in law / rule of Income Tax Act 1962 to hold a meeting for selection of members of National Committee. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35 AC of the Income Tax Act read with sub-rule (1) and (3) of Rule 11G of Income Tax Rules 1962, the Central Government appoints the persons as Chairman and Members of the National Committee from among persons of eminence in public life.
Download this RTI application and replies:
http://www.box.net/shared/tuoxjupxaa
b) RTI application to Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment
Information sought: In respect of various commissions under this ministry, viz. National Commission for Scheduled Castes, National Commission for Backward Classes, National Commission for Safai Karamcharis, National Minorities Commission, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, detailed information was sought about selection procedures followed.
Reply given: Replies have been received so far from three of these Commissions. They all are saying the same thing: All the replies blandly assert that the appointments are as per applicable legal provisions and rules. Appointments are being made without attracting applications, issuing advertisements or circulars, and holding meetings of selection committees as mandated by DoPT’s guidelines. No minutes of meetings or correspondence are being provided as to when and how these selections and appointments are made. In two of the three cases, Mittal is asked to inspect the records. National Commission for Backward Classes states that no such material exists. Information regarding names, designations and bio data of candidates who applied for the post is denied by all three Commissions on various grounds.
Download this RTI application and replies from three Commissions: http://www.box.net/shared/v2ix64bf7y
Mittal’s earlier investigations had unveiled appointments of Central Information Commissioners without any due procedure, and often in completely crooked and convoluted ways. The appointment of A N Tiwari, Satyananda Mishra and Omita Paul at Central Information Commission were terrible instances of lack of due procedure.
Clearly, accountability and transparency in appointments are missing throughout the administration.
III. Why the buck stops with DoPT.
DoPT’s induction material 2008 indicates that the buck stops with DoPT, which, being directly under the Prime Minister, is the only department empowered to tackle these malpractices in various ways. The induction material gives details of various watchdog mechanisms on corruption and administrative malpractices, all under DoPT:
4.5.1 Administrative Vigilance
An important element of personnel management is the maintenance of the professional ethics and standards of the bureaucracy. The Department of Personnel & Training determines Government policy for the maintenance of the integrity of the public services and eradication of corruption and coordinates the activities of various Ministries/Departments in that area. However, all Ministries/Departments and offices of the Government of India have the direct responsibility for the maintenance of discipline and integrity of their staff by taking preventive measures and eradication of corruption in their operational area of work.
4.6 Central Vigilance Commission
Advice on all vigilance matters is provided by Central Vigilance Commission. It has jurisdiction and power in respect of all matters to which the executive power of the Central Government extends. The Commission enjoys the same measure of independence and autonomy as the Union public Service Commission. The Commission has its office at Satarkta Bhavan, INA Colony, New Delhi.
4.7 Central Bureau of Investigation
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the premier investigating agency of the country and watchdog of the nation to arrest the growing menace of corruption as also to investigate the various types of banking, non-banking and the multitude of economic and other conventional offences. A new addition to its function is investigation of inquiries into terrorist crimes, vandalism etc. Cases are referred to this agency, on the basis of concurrence of the State Governments, by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court and there is an ever growing public demand for CBI investigation on account of the general perception that investigation by the CBI is more objective. The CBI has its headquarters office in Block No. 3, CGO Complex, New Delhi.
4.8 Joint Consultative Machinery
There is a well-structured machinery for joint consultation between the Central Government and its employees on a wide variety of service matters having a bearing on the administration and the general interests of the Government employees. It is a three-tier machinery consisting of the National Council, the Department Council and the Regional/Office Council. Service matters, pertaining to the interests of the generality of the employees or specific groups of them, are dealt with by this machinery.
4.9 Central Administrative Tribunal
In spite of the elaborate system of rules and regulations, which govern personnel management, there are Government employees who feel aggrieved by the Government decisions. The courts used to take many year to decide these cases and litigation was expensive. In order to provide speedy and inexpensive justice to employees aggrieved by Government decisions, the Government set up the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 1985, which now deals with all cases relating to service matters which were previously dealt with by courts up to and including the High Court. There are now 17 regular Benches of the CAT functioning in various parts of the country, including its Principal Bench at Delhi.
For updates and queries, contact Girish Mittal mittalgirish{AT}gmail.com,
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
I. Let us see how such posts are legitimately supposed to be filled.
A. What does the Constitution say? Article 16 is about Equality of Opportunity in Matters of Public Employment. It says, “There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
B. What is DoPT’s acknowledged role? As per DoPT’s induction material 2008: “The role of the Department of Personnel & Training can be conceptually divided into two parts, In its large nodal role, it acts as the formulator of policy and the watch-dog of the Government ensuring that certain accepted standards and norms, as laid down by it, are followed by all Ministries/Departments, in the recruitment, regulation of service conditions, posting/transfers, deputation of personnel as well as other related issues. Towards this end, guidelines are issued by it for the benefit of all Ministries/Departments and it monitors the implementation of these guidelines. It also advises all organizations of the Central Government on issues of personnel Management. At a more immediate level, the Department has the direct responsibility of being the cadre controlling authority for the IAS and the three Secretariat Services in the Central Secretariat. The Department also operates the Central Staffing Scheme under which suitable officers from All India Services and Group ‘A’ Central Services are selected and then placed in posts at the level of Deputy Secretary/Director and Joint Secretary, on the basis of tenure deputation. The Department also deals with cases of appointment to posts of Chairman, Managing Director, full-time functional Director/Member of the Board of Management of various Public Sector Undertakings/ Enterprises, Corporations, Banks and financial institutions. It also deals with the assignment of Indian experts to various developing countries.”
C. What do DoPT’s guidelines say?
Point 3(1)(i) of Search Committees guidelines 1994 says, “A Search Committee can be constituted only for posts that do not fall within UPSC’s purview. Point 3(1)(ii) says, “It is to be kept in mind that as a rule, appointments in government are to be made on the basis of open advertisement. Therefore, proper advertisement of vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment is an essential requirement. There may, however, be situations where advertisement itself may not result in adequate response for recruitment to similar posts which require specialized scientific/technical knowledge and experience. It is only in these situations that Search Committee should normally be appointed to locate suitable persons with the desired qualifications and experience to augment the response to the advertisement.
Further, the introductory paragraph of Search Committee guidelines ‘07 clarifies, “These instructions are primarily applicable to posts in the Government but also apply mutatis mutandis in the case of posts in autonomous / statutory organizations.”
II. Let us see the Information
unearthed by RTI applications.
Activist Girish Mittal & his father Kishanlal filed RTI applications with several authorities under various central ministries asking about selection procedures.
a) RTI application to NCPSEW (National Committee for Promotion of Social and Economic Welfare) under Revenue Department of Finance Ministry
Information sought: Minutes of meetings held for selection of members of National Committee for Promotion of Social and Economic Welfare
Reply given: “There is no provision in law / rule of Income Tax Act 1962 to hold a meeting for selection of members of National Committee. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35 AC of the Income Tax Act read with sub-rule (1) and (3) of Rule 11G of Income Tax Rules 1962, the Central Government appoints the persons as Chairman and Members of the National Committee from among persons of eminence in public life.
Download this RTI application and replies:
http://www.box.net/shared/tuoxjupxaa
b) RTI application to Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment
Information sought: In respect of various commissions under this ministry, viz. National Commission for Scheduled Castes, National Commission for Backward Classes, National Commission for Safai Karamcharis, National Minorities Commission, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, detailed information was sought about selection procedures followed.
Reply given: Replies have been received so far from three of these Commissions. They all are saying the same thing: All the replies blandly assert that the appointments are as per applicable legal provisions and rules. Appointments are being made without attracting applications, issuing advertisements or circulars, and holding meetings of selection committees as mandated by DoPT’s guidelines. No minutes of meetings or correspondence are being provided as to when and how these selections and appointments are made. In two of the three cases, Mittal is asked to inspect the records. National Commission for Backward Classes states that no such material exists. Information regarding names, designations and bio data of candidates who applied for the post is denied by all three Commissions on various grounds.
Download this RTI application and replies from three Commissions: http://www.box.net/shared/v2ix64bf7y
Mittal’s earlier investigations had unveiled appointments of Central Information Commissioners without any due procedure, and often in completely crooked and convoluted ways. The appointment of A N Tiwari, Satyananda Mishra and Omita Paul at Central Information Commission were terrible instances of lack of due procedure.
Clearly, accountability and transparency in appointments are missing throughout the administration.
III. Why the buck stops with DoPT.
DoPT’s induction material 2008 indicates that the buck stops with DoPT, which, being directly under the Prime Minister, is the only department empowered to tackle these malpractices in various ways. The induction material gives details of various watchdog mechanisms on corruption and administrative malpractices, all under DoPT:
4.5.1 Administrative Vigilance
An important element of personnel management is the maintenance of the professional ethics and standards of the bureaucracy. The Department of Personnel & Training determines Government policy for the maintenance of the integrity of the public services and eradication of corruption and coordinates the activities of various Ministries/Departments in that area. However, all Ministries/Departments and offices of the Government of India have the direct responsibility for the maintenance of discipline and integrity of their staff by taking preventive measures and eradication of corruption in their operational area of work.
4.6 Central Vigilance Commission
Advice on all vigilance matters is provided by Central Vigilance Commission. It has jurisdiction and power in respect of all matters to which the executive power of the Central Government extends. The Commission enjoys the same measure of independence and autonomy as the Union public Service Commission. The Commission has its office at Satarkta Bhavan, INA Colony, New Delhi.
4.7 Central Bureau of Investigation
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the premier investigating agency of the country and watchdog of the nation to arrest the growing menace of corruption as also to investigate the various types of banking, non-banking and the multitude of economic and other conventional offences. A new addition to its function is investigation of inquiries into terrorist crimes, vandalism etc. Cases are referred to this agency, on the basis of concurrence of the State Governments, by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court and there is an ever growing public demand for CBI investigation on account of the general perception that investigation by the CBI is more objective. The CBI has its headquarters office in Block No. 3, CGO Complex, New Delhi.
4.8 Joint Consultative Machinery
There is a well-structured machinery for joint consultation between the Central Government and its employees on a wide variety of service matters having a bearing on the administration and the general interests of the Government employees. It is a three-tier machinery consisting of the National Council, the Department Council and the Regional/Office Council. Service matters, pertaining to the interests of the generality of the employees or specific groups of them, are dealt with by this machinery.
4.9 Central Administrative Tribunal
In spite of the elaborate system of rules and regulations, which govern personnel management, there are Government employees who feel aggrieved by the Government decisions. The courts used to take many year to decide these cases and litigation was expensive. In order to provide speedy and inexpensive justice to employees aggrieved by Government decisions, the Government set up the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 1985, which now deals with all cases relating to service matters which were previously dealt with by courts up to and including the High Court. There are now 17 regular Benches of the CAT functioning in various parts of the country, including its Principal Bench at Delhi.
For updates and queries, contact Girish Mittal mittalgirish{AT}gmail.com,
Warm Regards,
Krish
98215 88114
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)