Fundamentally, the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the corridors of power from the germs of corruption and administrative lethargy. However, the ongoing challenges with NHM and Right to Information requests in Uttar Pradesh, as demonstrated by the case of Yogi M. P. Singh vs. PIO, National Health Mission (UP), show that the pillars of this democratic tool are being undermined by the very officials appointed to uphold them.

1. Challenges with NHM and Right to Information: The 17,000+ Vacancy Mystery

Specifically, the core of this legal grievance lies in the recruitment process for over 17,000 contractual positions—including ANMs, Staff Nurses, Lab Technicians, and Pharmacists—under the National Health Mission, Uttar Pradesh.

In a notification dated December 13, 2022, the NHM established that a waitlist for these positions would be valid for six months following the declaration of provisional results. Accordingly, the appellant, seeking to understand the status of these recruitments, requested specific details regarding:

• First, the identity of the “Competent Level” authority responsible for approving the waitlist.
• Second, the mechanism of approval and the specific staff involved.
• Finally, the reasons for the significant delay in finalizing the recruitment process.

Despite the clear public interest involved in filling thousands of healthcare roles, the public authority nonetheless responded with absolute silence.

2. A Timeline of Administrative Negligence

Overall, the appellant’s journey through the RTI hierarchy reveals a systematic breakdown of the “stipulated time” mandate:

• Initial Application (November 10, 2024): Filed under Section 6(1), the application was received by the PIO (Upmahaprabandhak NDC). By law, a response was due by December 10, 2024. Nevertheless, no response was provided.
• First Appeal (December 29, 2024): Following the PIO’s silence, the appellant then moved to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Apar Mission Nideshak. Meanwhile, under Section 19(1), the FAA is expected to adjudicate the matter within 30 to 45 days.
• Second Appeal (February 18, 2025): Since both the PIO and the FAA failed to provide either the information or a justification for its withholding, the matter has now reached the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.

3. The Legal Violation: Section 7(1) and the Mockery of Law

To begin with, the RTI Act is not a “recommendation”; rather, it is a statutory mandate. Specifically, Section 7(1) states that the PIO shall provide information within thirty days of the receipt of the request.

The appellant rightly points out that when a Deputy General Manager-rank officer ignores these timelines, it constitutes a “mockery of the provisions.” Indeed, this silence is often a veil for administrative inefficiency or, worse, a deliberate attempt to hide irregularities in the recruitment process. As a result, by failing to act, the PIO has effectively denied the citizen’s fundamental right to know.

4. The Role of the First Appellate Authority: A Failed Safety Net

The First Appellate Authority is, in principle, meant to serve as an internal check that corrects the PIO’s errors. In this case, however, the FAA (Apar Mission Nideshak) remained equally passive. Consequently, when the FAA ignores an appeal, the entire internal redressal mechanism of the department collapses, thereby forcing the citizen to approach the State Commission and increasing the burden on the judicial system.

5. Relief Sought: Invoking Section 20

Given this pattern of inaction, the appellant has made a forceful prayer to the Chief Information Commissioner for the invocation of Section 20 of the RTI Act. Notably, this section is the “teeth” of the Act:

• Section 20(1) Penalties: Allows the Commission to impose a penalty of ₹250 per day (up to a maximum of ₹25,000) on a PIO who has, without reasonable cause, refused to receive an application or failed to furnish information within the time specified.
• Section 20(2) Disciplinary Action: Empowers the Commission to recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the service rules applicable to them.

Ultimately, the appellant’s demand for “harsh steps” reflects a growing frustration among citizens who find that transparency is being sacrificed at the altar of bureaucratic ego.

6. Broader Implications for Governance in Uttar Pradesh

Broadly speaking, this case is not merely about one individual seeking information; rather, it illustrates the wider challenges with NHM and Right to Information compliance, and it speaks directly to the accountability of the Medical Health and Family Welfare Department.

If the National Health Mission—a body responsible for the state’s healthcare backbone—cannot be transparent about how it hires its staff, then it inevitably raises serious questions about the integrity of its operations. After all, corruption often thrives in the shadows of “pending approvals” and “competent levels” that remain unnamed.

Key Entity	Role in Dispute	Status of Action
PIO (NHM)	Information Provider	Failed to respond within 30 days
FAA (Mission Director)	Oversight/Correction	Failed to adjudicate the First Appeal
UP Info. Commission	Final Arbiter	Second Appeal Registered (A-20250200932)

7. Conclusion: The Road Ahead

As the Second Appeal (Registration No. A-20250200932) moves toward a hearing, all eyes will therefore be on the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Beyond simply compelling disclosure of the recruitment waitlist details, the Commission also has the power to set a precedent by penalizing the officers involved.

Ultimately, transparency is the bridge between the government and the governed. So when officers burn that bridge by ignoring RTI applications, they do not just fail a single applicant — indeed, they fail the Constitution.

This, in essence, is the central paradox in transparency law: if an administrative process is clean and follows the rules, there should be no reason to hide the documentation.

Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, “running away” from providing information is often a symptom of deeper institutional issues. Below, therefore, is a closer analysis of the recurring challenges with NHM and Right to Information requests, and why a Mission Director or PIO might withhold information even while claiming their actions are justified.

---

1. Challenges with NHM and Right to Information: “Administrative Discretion” vs. “Public Accountability”

Typically, the Department relies on the excuse of “process pending.” However, the law is clear on this point:

• Section 8 (Exemptions): Notably, information can only be withheld if it falls under specific categories, such as national security or trade secrets. Recruitment waitlists for public health jobs, however, do not fall under these categories.
• The “Inconvenience” Factor: Providing the “mechanism of approval” and “names of the competent level,” moreover, makes individuals personally accountable. Consequently, by not providing names, the department remains a faceless entity, making it harder for citizens to point out specific instances of favoritism or negligence.

2. Fear of Exposing Procedural Lapses

For instance, if the Mission Director were to provide the requested information regarding the “delay in approving recruitment,” it might reveal:

• Bureaucratic Red Tape: Namely, files sitting on desks for months without a valid reason.
• Violation of Notifications: The December 13, 2022, notification stated that the waitlist is valid for six months. Therefore, if officials failed to act within that window, providing that information would amount to an admission of administrative failure.
• Financial/Legal Risks: Admitting that vacancies exist but aren’t being filled from a valid waitlist could, in turn, open the door to massive litigation from qualified candidates.

3. The Culture of “Impunity”

In practice, many high-ranking officers, including the First Appellate Authority, ignore RTI appeals because they believe the consequences are minimal.

• The Burden of Proof: Essentially, they count on the appellant growing tired and giving up.
• Lack of Direct Penalty for FAA: While Section 20 allows for penalties against the PIO, the law is comparatively softer on the FAA. As a result, they often “run away,” since the Act doesn’t explicitly fine them in the same way it fines a PIO — leading, in turn, to a lack of urgency.

4. The “Competent Level” Shield

Notably, the query specifically asks for the names and designations of the “Competent Level.” By withholding this, officials are, in effect, protecting the decision-makers from direct scrutiny. After all, if the public knows exactly who is sitting on the file, that official can then be held responsible in a court of law or by the Commission.

---

The Legal Reality Behind the Challenges with NHM and Right to Information

Fundamentally, the RTI Act operates on the principle of “Maximum Disclosure, Minimum Exemptions.” If the Mission Director’s stand were truly justified, she would therefore have issued a formal “Speaking Order” — a detailed letter explaining the legal reasons for denial — rather than maintaining total silence.

Next Steps

Since the Second Appeal has already been filed, the Commission is now the only body that can strip away this “running away” tactic. Below, accordingly, are the structured contact details and identifiers for the authorities involved in the appeal, based on filing details and recent public records for 2025–2026.

1. Application & Appeal Identifiers

For reference, keep these numbers ready for all future correspondence with the Information Commission. (Challenges with NHM and Right to Information)

Document Type	Registration/ID Number	Date Filed	Status
Original RTI Application	DIRMH/R/2024/62186	10/11/2024	Received (No Action)
RTI Transaction ID	DIRMHR20240000002615	10/11/2024	Confirmed
First Appeal (FAA)	DIRMH/A/2024/61125	29/12/2024	Pending
Second Appeal (SIC)	A-20250200932	18/02/2025	Registered
Grievance Ref (MoHFW)	DHLTH/E/2024/0003293	28/02/2024	Forwarded to State

---

2. Concerned Public Authorities (NHM Uttar Pradesh) (Challenges with NHM and Right to Information)

Specifically, the primary responsibility lies with the State Programme Management Unit (SPMU) of the National Health Mission.

• Public Information Officer (PIO):
  • Designation: Upmahaprabandhak (DGM) NDC, NHM
  • Phone: 9452867571
  • Email: jansuchnaadhikariupnhm@gmail.com
  • Address: U.P. Health System Strengthening Project Office, Lucknow – 226001
• First Appellate Authority (FAA):
  • Designation: Apar Mission Nideshak (Additional Mission Director), NHM
  • Current Mission Director: Dr. Pinky Jowel (as per 2025-26 official roster)
  • Phone: 0522-2237391 / 0522-2237595
  • Email: amdnhmlko@gmail.com / mdupnrhm@gmail.com
  • Address: 16, A.P. Sen Road, Charbagh, Lucknow – 226001

---

3. Key Web Links (Challenges with NHM and Right to Information)

These portals, in addition, can be used to track status or file supplementary affidavits.

• UP RTI Online Portal:rtionline.up.gov.in
  • Use the “Citizen Login” to track the status of registration DIRMH/R/2024/62186.
• UP Information Commission (SIC):upsic.gov.in
  • Direct link to check Second Appeal status for A-20250200932.
• NHM UP Official Website: upnrhm.gov.in
• NHM Helpline: nhmhelpline.upgov.info (Toll-Free: 1800-180-1900)

---

4. Strategic Note for the Hearing (Challenges with NHM and Right to Information)

Since the RTI was originally filed with the Directorate of Medical Health and then subsequently shifted toward NHM, there is a real risk of the departments “passing the buck.” During the online hearing, therefore, it is worth emphasizing that the Transaction ID DIRMHR20240000002615 proves the government received the fee and is, consequently, legally bound to answer — regardless of which internal office currently holds the file.o a different sub-department?