🚨 RTI Nightmare: Information Denied Despite Commission Appeal!

A recent case involving an RTI appeal has brought to light a concerning trend of public authorities withholding crucial information, even when matters reach the State Information Commission. Despite the appeal, crucial information was denied, raising significant concerns about transparency and accountability in governance.
The appellant, Shri Yogi M.P. Singh, sought specific details regarding a major recruitment drive that had the potential to impact many job seekers in the community, but the Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a generic and non-responsive reply, claiming the process was merely “completed.”
This vague response not only failed to address the specific queries posed by Shri Singh but also highlighted a troubling pattern where public bodies sidestep their obligations under the Right to Information Act, leaving citizens frustrated and uninformed.
As public authorities continue to operate in such a manner, it raises serious questions about their commitment to the democratic principle of access to information, which is fundamental for an informed citizenry and essential for holding these institutions accountable.

---

The Case Background is Information Denied Despite Appeal: A Quest for Transparency

The issue revolves around the recruitment process for 17,000+ contractual vacancies under the National Health Mission (NHM), Uttar Pradesh, a situation that has raised significant concerns among many stakeholders.
The appellant, Shri Yogi M.P. Singh, had previously filed an RTI application seeking detailed information regarding the recruitment criteria, selection process, and timelines for these positions.
Unfortunately, even with an appeal for transparency, crucial information was denied, showcasing the Information Denied Despite Appeal scenario, which is indicative of a broader issue in the system that undermines public trust.
This lack of transparency not only affects the applicants who are eagerly waiting for opportunities but also hampers the mission’s ability to function efficiently, as the recruitment of skilled personnel is vital for the effective delivery of health services in the state.
The denial of information raises questions about accountability and the need for reforms to ensure that such processes are conducted with the utmost transparency, thereby restoring faith in government operations.

---

The Information Sought vs. The Information Provided

The core of the dispute lies in the Public Information Officer’s reply, which completely failed to address the detailed queries raised by the appellant. In essence, this situation represents a classic case where crucial information, despite efforts, is denied. Thus Information Denied Despite Appeal in the UPSIC.

🔍 The Appellant’s Specific Queries (Focus of Appeal)

Shri Yogi M.P. Singh’s RTI application (Registration No. NHMIS/R/2025/80080) sought information on five specific points, primarily concerning the ‘waiting list’ and the ‘competent level’ authority involved in the recruitment:

• Competent Level: Details about the “competent level” authority mentioned in an earlier communication regarding the waiting list.
• Approval Mechanism: The official mechanism or process for the approval of the waiting list by the competent level.
• Personnel Details: Name, designation, and posting details of the officials included in the competent level.
• Reason for Delay: The reason for the delay in approving recruitment from the waiting list, especially in light of a communication from the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.
• Monitoring Head: Name, designation, and posting details of the Chairman/President/Monitoring Head of the competent level authority.

It is obvious that this information concerns the wide public interest. It is most unfortunate that Information Denied Despite Appeal.

🚫 The Public Authority’s Generic Response

The PIO, Shri S.V.P. Pankaj, Deputy General Manager, NHM, forwarded a single-line report from the General Manager (Human Resources) as a response:

“In this regard, it is to be informed that the said recruitment process has been completed, the notification of which is uploaded on the website of National Health Mission, Uttar Pradesh http://www.upnrhm.gov.in.”

This reply was sent vide Letter No.: 151/SPMU/DAP-HR/RTI/2025-26/1983 dated 17/7/2025.

---

The Critical Flaw: Non-Responsive and Misleading

The PIO’s response presents a clear case of information denial under the guise of providing a “reply.” Despite several efforts and appeals, crucial details were denied. This further exemplifies a situation of Information Denied Despite the Appeal, highlighting a concerning issue for transparency.

• Failing to Address Specifics: The RTI Act mandates that the PIO must provide information on record. The status of the recruitment process (i.e., “completed”) does not exempt the public authority from providing the records related to the decision-making process that preceded completion or termination.
• The ‘Completed’ Loophole: By simply stating the process is ‘completed’ and directing the applicant to the website, the PIO avoids disclosing crucial details like who was in the ‘competent level’, what the approval mechanism was, and why there was a delay, all of which are information held on record and were specifically sought.
• Violation of RTI Act: This response is in direct contravention of the spirit of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which seeks to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.

---

A Call for Intervention

This situation underscores the need for stringent action by the Information Commission. When specific, point-wise information is sought, especially in matters concerning wide public interest and alleged irregularities, a generic, non-responsive reply essentially amounts to a denial of crucial information under the Act.

The appellant’s subsequent move to file an application for Recall/Review of the final order (which disposed of the appeal based on this ‘information’) is a necessary step to enforce compliance with the law. It is essential to hold the erring officials accountable under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Without intervention, this becomes a clear example of Information Denied After Appeal, leaving the system opaque.

No transparency in recruitment of contractual vacancies of ANM, Staff Nurse, Lab Technician etc.

Lack of transparency and accountability in selection process of recruitment