You are on page 1of 39

Contents

Girish Mittals RTI application & DoPTs response CIC A N Tiwaris self-selection methods CIC Satyananda Mishras self-selection methods Constitutional safeguards against self-selection

Page no.
3, 42 - 45 4 - 22 23 - 38 39-40

Girish Mittals Right to Information Application

In response to his RTI application dated 25 May 2009, RTI applicant Girish Mittal recieved, in three installments, roughly 350 pages from DoPTs files. Many of these papers were disclosed following the First Appeal order on 19 November 2009. This was information that DoPT had earlier denied having in its possession; Chief CIC Wajahat Habibullah had upheld the denial in December 2008. (In earlier years, he had loosely cited the Official Secrets Act for denying this information.) However, not all papers have been given to Girish. There are some crucial missing links, such as letters from PMO initiating the search for suitable candidates in the first round of selections, as also agenda papers and minutes of meetings where the first batch of Information Commissioners were selected. For procuring these missing papers, Girish has already filed second appeal. From page 4 to page 21 of this document, we have detailed, in a chronological and logical order, the documents of the self-selection process of former DoPT Secretary A N Tiwari. From page 22 to 36, we have shown the documents pertaining to the self-selection of former DoPT Secretary Satyananda Mishra .

Gazette notification 11 October 05

Gazette notification

A N Tiwari
Resume
submitted on

20 July 2005

A N Tiwari resume

Applications recieved by A N Tiwari


Besides the applications of Wajahat Habibullah and others who went on to become CIC and ICs, several other applications and biodatas were recieved by A N Tiwari, DoPT Secretary in July and August 2005. Have a look... 26 July, 05 Lakshmi Chand

Applications recieved by A N Tiwari


28 July, 05 G C Srivastava

Applications recieved by A N Tiwari


29July, 05 K Jayakumar

10

Applications recieved by A N Tiwari


12 August, 05 R Ganesan & G Mohanakumar

11

Applications recieved by A N Tiwari


26 August, 05 G Mohanakumar

12

The Information Commissioners post waited patiently for A N Tiwari


Judging at a glance the various biodatas recieved by him, it appears that these candidates were at least as deserving as Mr A N Tiwari, if not more. One of them would probably have been Information Commissioner today if Mr Tiwari had not reserved a seat for himself... Please note: RESERVED. Because, unlike other Commissioners appointed in that batch, Mr Tiwari did not even write a reply to the offer letter. Nor did he promptly give up his job and join the Central Informaton Commission in October like the others. Mr Tiwari took his time, and joined two-and-a-half months after the letter of offer, without even replying to it. He exhausted his full tenure as an IAS officer to the last day. He retired upon superannuation, before occupying the seat of Information Commissioner. Wah! Dadagiri issey kehte hain! In the next few pages, we are comparing Mr Tiwaris responses with those of other Information Commissioners in the same batch -- Padma Balasubramanian and M M Ansari, for example.
13

Example 1: Padma Balasubramian


10 October, 05

14

Example 1: Padma Balasubramian


12 October, 05

15

Example 1: Padma Balasubramian


21 October, 05

16

Example 2: M M Ansari
10 October, 05

17

Example 2: M M Ansari
21 October, 05

18

Example 2: M M Ansari
31 October, 05

19

Compare the earlier responses with A N Tiwaris ...


10 October, 05

20

Example 1: A N Tiwari

No letter of acceptance of offer.

21

Example 1: A N Tiwari

26 December, 05
(i.e. Two-and-half months after offer letter)

22

Please ask: Why did the post of Information Commissioner have to wait 77 days for him? Was Mr Tiwari really so important?

Enough said about Mr Tiwari. Now let us turn our attention to Satyananda Mishra, DoPT Secretary. In June 08, PMO asked whether there was a need to expand the Commission. To this, Mr Mishra wrote a self-serving note about the urgent need to appoint six more Commissioners. In July 08, PMO specifically requested him to propose a panel of names for appointment of four more Information Commissioners. So what did Mr Mishra do? Despite having a wealth of suitable candidates to choose from, he proposed only five names... including his own name. Thus, he reduced his chances of being rejected to 20% at the outer most! Isnt he a clever man? In August 08, PMs selecting committee rewarded his cleverness by making him an Information Commissioner.
23

Satyananda Mishras advice to PMO to appoint more ICs


23 June, 08

24

PMOs instructions to Satyananda Mishra


28 July, 08

25

Satyananda

Mishra

schedules Selection Committee meeting for


21 August, 08

26

... and includes his own name in the list of candidates.

27

Satyananda Mishras

Bio-Data

28

Satyananda Mishras

Bio-Data

29

The meeting is postponed twice to 26 and 27 August

30

... and Shailesh Gandhi makes a surprise entry.

31

Shailesh Gandhis name is added to the short- list.

32

The selection is finally made... Out of six, four are selected.

33

Satyananda Mishra gets offer letter, addressed to him from his own DoPT colleague.

34

To this, he replies as follows...

35

And so they all live happily ever after... But wait a minute! What about those others who had applied to Satyanand Mishra in his capacity as DoPT Secretary?

36

For example, what about Lt. Gen Arvind Mahajan who had sent his application to Mr Mishra on 8th Jan 08?

37

What about all those others who kept sending their applications, but were clueless about how, when and where to send them, because they were not the DoPT Secretary, or in his inner circle? Tough luck! Better luck next time, old chaps. (But there will be no next time, because most candidates are well past 60 years already.)

38

Is the Constitution silent on such issues? Emphatically, NO!


Here is what Article 319 says for preventing self-selection in such instances:
319. On ceasing to hold office (a) the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission shall be ineligible for further employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State; (b) the Chairman of a State Public Service Commission shall be eligible for appointment as the Chairman or any other member of the Union Public Service Commission or as the Chairman of any other State Public Service Commission, but not for any other employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State; (c) a member other than the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission shall be eligible for appointment as the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission, or as the Chairman of a State Public Service Commission, but not for any other employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State; (d) a member other than the Chairman of a State Public Service Commission shall be eligible for appointment as the Chairman or any other member of the Union Public Service Commission or as the Chairman of that or any other State Public Service Commission, but not for any other employment either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State.

Why does Article 319 say all this? Because Public Service Commissions are bodies that help in selections similar to DoPTs role in selecting CIC/ICs. Article 320 describes the role of Public Service Commissions:
320. (1) It shall be the duty of the Union and the State Public Service Commissions to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the Union and the services of the State respectively. (2) It shall also be the duty of the Union Public Service Commission, if requested by any two or more States so to do, to assist those States in framing and operating schemes of joint recruitment for any services for which candidates possessing special qualifications are required.

So isnt it self-evident that, following the same constitutional principle, DoPT Secretaries must not be eligible for appointment to the post of CIC/IC?
39

And here is what Article 16 says about right to equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of State employment:
16. (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.

Fellow citizens, do you and I have as much opportunity to become Information Commissioners as Messrs A N Tiwari & Satyananda Mishra? You decide.
40