2nd Appeal to the Chief Information Commissioner dt:20-3-2009


To
Sri. C.D. Arha,
Chief Information Commissioner,
The A.P. Information Commission,
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

Sir,

Sub:- Second Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005- Failure to furnish information by the PIO and also the Secretary & Appellate Authority, APPSC- reg.

Encl:- 1. Representation made to the PIO dt: 8-12-08.
2. (1st Appeal) Representation to the Secretary & Appellate Authority, APPSC, dt: 17-01-o9.

Sir, on 8-12-2008, I had submitted an application, under the RTI Act, 2005 to the Public Information Officer, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission seeking details of the Recruitments made by the APPSC to the Group-I and Group-II services during the year 2006. However, I didn’t receive any communication let alone the information requested for, even after the stipulated 30 days.

Sir, in the letter dated 17-01-2009, I had appealed to the Secretary & Appellate Authority, APPSC requesting him to kindly make sure that I am provided with access to the information. To my utter dismay, I have received no communication whatsoever, even after the stipulated 45 days within which the application should’ve been disposed off. Sir, as you would be aware, the inaction on the part of the PIO and the Appellate Authority is in gross violation of the RTI Act 2005 wherein , U/S 7 (8) ,

“where a request has been rejected, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall communicate to the person making the request,-

i) the reasons for such rejection;
ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred;
iii) the particulars of the Appellate Authority.”

Thus, it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to communicate the reasons for rejection, etc. The fact that both the authorities hadn’t responded, at all, lends credence to the rumours doing rounds that people belonging to a particular community, viz., Reddy and a particular region, viz., Rayalaseema are been showered with undue favours during the interviews, esp. by the Chairman. No surprises since the CM hails from that region as well ! That’s not all, Sir. It is widely believed that he is hostile (by way of awarding lesser marks) towards candidates belonging to the Reserved Categories, thereby stifling their chance of making it in the Open competition.

Call it coincidence or design, the results of the interviews conducted for Group-I in 2006 were released well after mid-night. In addition to that, only the Hall Ticket Number, Community and total marks (including marks obtained in the interview) of all those who made it to the interview stage were made public. Here it is pertinent to mention that, the UPSC releases the names (incl. surname) of the candidates selected, in the order of merit.

That my application under the RTI Act, 2005 has been completely ignored, even though the information sought doesn’t come under the purview of the exceptions listed in Section 8 of the Act, shows that there’s a deliberate attempt to cover up the grossly unconstitutional, unethical and unscrupulous acts.

It is incomprehensible to note that such a highly educated and qualified person/s could’ve succumbed to the allure of nepotism/ favouritism (for whatever considerations). Sir, it goes without saying that such undue favours shown to a particular community become a death-knell for the rest, viz., Brahmins, Kammas, Rajus, etc in the OC list and some meritorious students from the reserved communities as well. It is a cruel joke that was and is being played on the hopes and aspirations of the candidates. The interview has been turned into a charade, thus making a mockery of the recruitment procedure. Such instances of nepotism on the one hand and discrimination on the other, strike at the roots of the belief in the sense of ‘fair-play’ in recruitment and can have a devastating effect on the aspirants’ psyche and outlook towards the system as a whole.

In view of the doubts being raised and the evident cover-up attempt, I request you to exercise the powers vested in you U/S 19 (8) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005 and direct the PIO, APPSC to provide access to the information and in the form suggested in my representation dt: 8-12-08 addressed to the PIO, APPSC. Sir, it is further submitted that U/S 19 (8) (c) of the RTI Act, 2005, the State Information Commission is authorised to, “impose any of the penalties provided under this Act.”

Sir, I request you to apply the provisions of Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and impose stiff penalties on the Authorities concerned for malafidely denying my request for the information. Sir, the utter disregard, which amounts to gross negligence or something more sinister, viz., willful disobedience towards the laws of the land, shown to a lawful and proper application cannot and should not be condoned. I humbly request you to impose on them maximum punitive monetary punishment so that it would act as a deterrence for such acts of willful, malafide non-compliance with the rules.



Thanking you,


Yours Sincerely,

(Sunand P)