🔍 Regularization of Daily Wage Staff at MGKVP:

A Legal and Procedural Overview.
Registrar Sunita Pandey is running away from providing information about regularization of daily wage staff, raising concerns among employees and labor rights advocates. This evasive behavior is particularly alarming as it hinders transparency and accountability in the organization’s hiring and employment practices.
The lack of clarity regarding the regularization process not only affects the job security of the daily wage staff but also reflects poorly on the governance of the institution.
It is imperative that the registrar addresses these issues promptly to restore trust and ensure that all employees are treated fairly according to labor laws and regulations.

📜 Government Notification: What It Says

The 2016 notification from the Government of Uttar Pradesh aimed to offer a comprehensive framework designed to address the longstanding issue of daily wage employees.
This framework was specifically for regularizing daily wage employees who had dedicated their services for extended periods in various sanctioned posts across different departments.
By recognizing the contributions of these workers, the government sought to provide them with better job security and benefits.
The key criteria typically include: a minimum duration of continuous service, satisfactory performance evaluations, and adherence to official protocols, which collectively aim to ensure that those who have genuinely fulfilled their roles are afforded proper recognition and stability in their employment status.
Moreover, this initiative reflects a significant step towards improving labor rights and enhancing the livelihoods of those who have often been marginalized in the workforce.

---

🚨 Second Appeal Filed Under RTI Act: A Fight for Transparency at MGKVP Varanasi

On 7th September 2025, a significant step was taken in the pursuit of administrative accountability, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle for enhanced transparency within governmental institutions.
Yogi M. P. Singh, a persistent advocate for justice and transparency, remains committed to holding authorities accountable for their actions and decisions. He filed a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which serves as a crucial mechanism for citizens to seek information and challenge unresponsive governmental practices.
This appeal is officially registered under number A-20250900623, and it presents a comprehensive query regarding the evasive responses of the Public Information Officer (PIO).
Moreover, it addresses the critical issue of non-compliance by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) at the esteemed Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith University, Varanasi, underscoring the need for a prompt and thorough investigation into the lack of adherence to the principles laid out by the RTI Act, thereby reinforcing the belief that every citizen has the right to receive accurate information in a timely manner.

📌 Background of the RTI Inquiry

To start with, the original RTI application (Registration No. MGKVV/R/2025/60036) was submitted on 10th May 2025. The queries focused on the implementation of the Government of Uttar Pradesh’s Notification dated 12th September 2016, which holds significant relevance to the ongoing discussions about labor rights and employment practices in the state.
This notification pertains to the regularization of daily wage staff, a crucial issue that affects thousands of workers who have been engaged in temporary positions over the years without adequate job security or benefits.
The lack of clarity concerning the application of these regulations raises pressing questions that need to be addressed by the authorities. It is a matter of undeniable public interest, as the livelihoods of these workers depend on the timely and effective implementation of the policies designed to protect their rights and ensure fair compensation for their labor, thereby promoting social equity and stability within the workforce.

Despite the clarity and relevance of the questions, the response from the PIO was not only delayed but also evasive. Instead of providing point-wise answers, the PIO referred vaguely to the university website. This response violated the statutory timeline under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.

⚖️ Grounds for the Second Appeal

Consequently, the appellant was compelled to escalate the matter due to the unsatisfactory resolution provided in the initial stages of the appeal process.
Frustrated by the lack of engagement, the First Appeal (Appeal No. MGKVV/A/2025/60025) was filed, only to be dismissed mechanically by the FAA without any substantive review of the underlying issues raised, which seemed to reflect a troubling disregard for the appellant’s arguments.
This cursory dismissal not only added to the appellant’s distress but also reinforced the necessity for further action.
Therefore, this led to the filing of the present Second Appeal, which outlines five critical grounds that underscore the essential merits of the case, aiming to rectify the misjudgments made previously and seeking a fair re-examination of the facts presented.

1. Violation of Section 7(1):
   The PIO neglected to respond within the mandated 30-day period. The reply offered was generic and did not handle the specific queries.
2. Denial of Information Without Just Cause:
   The PIO cited Rule 4(2)(b)(iv) of the RTI Rules, 2015. They also cited Rule 4(2)(b)(v) to deny information. The PIO claimed the queries were “why” questions. They also argued that responding required disproportionate resources. Yet, these justifications do not apply to the nature of the information sought.
3. Failure of the FAA to Apply Mind:
   The FAA disposed of the appeal without examining its merits. This decision reflects a lack of diligence. It undermines the appellate process.
4. Public Interest and Constitutional Mandate:
   The information sought is crucial for understanding a policy’s implementation. This policy aims to improve employment conditions for daily wage workers. Denial of such information contradicts the principles of transparency and good governance.
5. Right to Reason as a Fundamental Principle:
   The Supreme Court has affirmed that the “right to reason” is essential. It is integral to fair administration. The refusal to give reasons for non-regularization violates this principle.

📝 Respondent Details

• Public Information Officer (PIO):
  Dr. Sunita Pandey, Registrar
  Email: registrarmgkvp@gmail.com | Mobile: 9839501925
  Address: MGKVP University, Chetganj, Varanasi – 221002
• First Appellate Authority (FAA):
  Prof. Anand K. Tyagi, Vice Chancellor
  Email: vc@mgkvp.ac.in | Phone: 9839501925
  Address: MGKVP University, Chetganj, Varanasi – 221002

🙏 Prayer to the Hon’ble Commission

In light of the above, the appellant respectfully requests the Central Information Commission to:

• Direct the PIO to give complete and point-wise information under Section 19(8)(a)
• Start penal proceedings under Section 20(1) for willful denial and delay
• Recommend disciplinary action against the FAA under Section 20(2)
• Issue directions to guarantee future compliance with the RTI Act

📍 Appellant Details

• Name: Yogi M. P. Singh
• Location: Mohalla Surekapuram Colony, Jabalpur Road, Sangmohal, District-Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh – 231001
• Mobile: 7379105911

---

This appeal is not just a procedural step. It is a call to uphold the spirit of the RTI Act. It aims to reinforce the values of transparency, accountability, and justice. Let this serve as a reminder that public institutions must answer to the people they serve.

Appointment of permanent and temporary teachers in K.B.P.G. Mirzapur by MGKVP Varanasi and Higher education concerns quality of education