This blog post provides a comprehensive analysis of the Second Appeal filed by Shri Yogi M. P. Singh against the National Health Mission (NHM), Uttar Pradesh. It explores the systemic failure of transparency mechanisms and the legal implications for public officials who disregard the Right to Information Act, 2005.

---

Transparency in Peril: The Legal Battle Against Information Suppression in NHM Uttar Pradesh

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, as the case of Yogi M. P. Singh vs. PIO, National Health Mission (UP) demonstrates, the pillars of this democratic tool are being undermined by the very officials appointed to uphold them.

1. The Genesis of the Dispute: The 17,000+ Vacancy Mystery

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. The appellant, seeking to understand the status of these recruitments, requested specific details regarding:

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

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

2. A Timeline of Administrative Negligence

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. No response was provided.
• First Appeal (December 29, 2024): Following the PIO’s silence, the appellant moved to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Apar Mission Nideshak. Under Section 19(1), the FAA is expected to adjudicate the matter within 30 to 45 days.
• Second Appeal (February 18, 2025): With both the PIO and the FAA failing 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

The RTI Act is not a “recommendation”; it is a statutory mandate. Section 7(1) explicitly 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.” This silence is often a veil for administrative inefficiency or, worse, a deliberate attempt to hide irregularities in the recruitment process. 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 intended to be an internal check to correct the PIO’s errors. In this case, the FAA (Apar Mission Nideshak) remained equally passive. When the FAA ignores an appeal, the entire internal redressal mechanism of the department collapses, forcing the citizen to approach the State Commission, thereby increasing the burden on the judicial system.

5. Relief Sought: Invoking Section 20

The appellant has made a forceful prayer to the Chief Information Commissioner for the invocation of Section 20 of the RTI Act. 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.

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

This case is not merely about one individual seeking information; it is about 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, it raises serious questions about the integrity of its operations. 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 be on the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. The Commission has the power to not only compel the disclosure of the recruitment waitlist details but also to set a precedent by penalizing the officers involved.

Transparency is the bridge between the government and the governed. When officers burn that bridge by ignoring RTI applications, they do not just fail a single applicant; they fail the Constitution.

This 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. Here is an analysis of why a Mission Director or PIO might withhold information, even if they claim their actions are justified.

---

1. The Conflict Between “Administrative Discretion” and “Public Accountability”

The Department often relies on the excuse of “process pending.” However, the law is clear:

• Section 8 (Exemptions): Information can only be withheld if it falls under specific categories (like national security or trade secrets).^{1 Recruitment waitlists for public health jobs do not fall under these categories.}
• The “Inconvenience” Factor: Providing the “mechanism of approval” and “names of the competent level” makes individuals personally accountable. 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

If the Mission Director provides the information you requested regarding the “delay in approving recruitment,” it might reveal:

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

3. The Culture of “Impunity”

Many high-ranking officers (like the First Appellate Authority) ignore RTI appeals because they believe the consequences are minimal.

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

4. The “Competent Level” Shield

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

---

The Legal Reality

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

Your Next Step

Since you have already filed the Second Appeal, the Commission is now the only body that can strip away this “running away” tactic.

Based on your filing details and recent public records for 2025–2026, here are the structured contact details and identifiers for the authorities involved in your appeal.

1. Application & Appeal Identifiers

Keep these numbers ready for all future correspondence with the Information Commission.

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)

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

You can use these portals 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 your Hearing

Since your RTI was originally filed with the Directorate of Medical Health and then shifted toward NHM, there is a risk of the departments “passing the buck.” In your online hearing, emphasize that the Transaction ID DIRMHR20240000002615 proves the government received your fee and is therefore legally bound to answer, regardless of which internal office currently holds the file.

Would you like me to draft a “Rejoinder” (response) to submit to the Information Commission if the PIO tries to claim that the information belongs to a different sub-department?