The blog post outlines a critical legal battle where the RTI Act is used as a weapon against identity impersonation in government departments.

Here are the key takeaways:

1. The Core Conflict: Identity Theft vs. Privacy

The central issue is “Identity Impersonation,” where a person secures a government job using someone else’s credentials. While victims use RTI to expose this, government offices often hide behind Section 8(1)(j) (Privacy), claiming employee data is confidential. The blog argues that fraud is not private and should be disclosed in the public interest.

2. RTI as a Shield in Maintenance Suits

In many legal disputes, such as maintenance cases, a man might be accused of having a government job he doesn’t actually hold. The RTI is the primary tool to prove to the court that:

• An impostor is drawing a salary using the applicant’s name.
• The applicant is not the actual employee, thereby correcting financial liability in court.

3. The Necessity of the “First Appeal”

A rejection by a Public Information Officer (PIO) is not the end. The blog highlights that the First Appeal is the most vital step to challenge the PIO’s logic. It allows the applicant to force a senior officer (the FAA) to reconsider the case based on:

• The Proviso to Section 8(1)(j): Information that cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to a citizen.
• The mismatch between the applicant’s physical identity and the employee’s records.

4. Systemic Failures in Verification

The post points out that these frauds happen because of “Verification Gaps.”

• Departments often fail to cross-reference Aadhaar biometrics at the time of hiring.
• Reliance on physical photocopies instead of digital verification through platforms like DigiLocker allows impostors to slip through the system.

5. Legal Recourse Beyond RTI

If the RTI process remains blocked, the victim has three secondary options:

• Criminal Action: Filing an FIR for forgery and cheating.
• Writ of Mandamus: Asking the High Court to force a department inquiry.
• Summoning Records: Requesting the Trial Court to “Summon the Service Book” of the employee directly to the courtroom.

This blog post explores the critical issue of identity theft within government administrative frameworks, specifically focusing on the intersection of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and legal disputes like maintenance suits.

---

Identity Theft in Public Offices: Using RTI to Uncover Employment Fraud

In a functioning democracy, government departments are expected to be the custodians of trust. However, a growing and sophisticated form of white-collar crime is challenging this trust: Identity Impersonation for Government Employment. This occurs when an individual secures a government job using the educational credentials, Aadhaar details, and name of another person—often a namesake or a distant acquaintance.

For the victim, this isn’t just a matter of stolen paperwork; it is a legal nightmare that can impact their credit, their reputation, and their liability in court.

The Trigger: Maintenance Suits and Financial Liability

The issue often comes to light during sensitive legal proceedings, such as a Maintenance Suit under Section 125 of the CrPC (or Section 144 of the BNSS). In these cases, the court must determine the financial capacity of a husband to provide support.

If a husband claims he is unemployed, but the wife presents evidence of a government salary being drawn in his name, the court faces a paradox. If the man is indeed unemployed and someone else is “living” his professional life in a government office, he must prove this impersonation to avoid an unfair financial burden and potential jail time for perjury.

The RTI Act: A Tool for Discovery or a Shield for Fraud?

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 was designed to bring transparency. However, when a victim attempts to verify if someone is working under their name, they are often met with a standard “Rejection Letter” from the Public Information Officer (PIO).

The “Privacy” Trap: Section 8(1)(j)

The most common ground for denial is Section 8(1)(j), which protects “personal information” that has no relationship to any public activity or interest. PIOs often argue that employment details are personal to the employee.

However, legal experts argue that:

1. Impersonation is not Personal: A fraudulent identity is not “personal information”; it is a criminal act.
2. Public Interest: If a person is drawing a salary from the public exchequer (taxpayer money) under a false identity, it is a matter of immense public interest.
3. The Proviso Rule: The RTI Act states that information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to an individual. A fraud in a government department would certainly be reported to the Legislature.

Case Study: The CMO Mirzapur Denial

In recent administrative developments, applicants seeking to verify their identity within the Medical and Health Department have faced blanket denials. When a citizen submits their own High School marksheets and Aadhaar card to a Chief Medical Officer (CMO) to check for a “duplicate employee,” a denial based on privacy is logically flawed.

By refusing to verify the identity, the department may inadvertently be protecting an impostor. This creates a “legal stalemate” where the victim is blamed in court for having a job they don’t actually hold, while the government refuses to confirm the fraud.

The Power of the First Appeal

When a PIO denies a request, the applicant has 30 days to file a First Appeal under Section 19(1). This is a critical stage where the applicant can challenge the PIO’s logic before a senior officer (the First Appellate Authority).

Key Arguments for an Appeal:

• Identity Verification vs. Personal Data: Clarify that you are not asking for a stranger’s bank details; you are asking the department to verify if your identity is being used.
• The Burden of Proof: In a court of law, the burden of proof often shifts. If an RTI can prove that the “Indradev Yadav” working in the department has different parentage or a different birth date than the “Indradev Yadav” in the lawsuit, the fraud is exposed.

Systemic Vulnerabilities in Recruitment

How does this happen? The root cause lies in the gaps in the document verification process during recruitment, especially for contractual or local-level health department roles.

• Lack of Biometric Cross-Referencing: If Aadhaar biometrics were matched at the time of joining, identity theft would be nearly impossible.
• Physical Verification Gaps: Often, only photocopies of marksheets are verified against “originals” which may themselves be forged.

Legal Remedies Beyond RTI

If the RTI process fails to yield results even at the Commission level, the victim has several paths:

1. Police Complaint (FIR): Filing an FIR for cheating (Section 420) and forgery (Section 468) under the IPC/BNS.
2. Writ of Mandamus: Filing a petition in the High Court to direct the government department to conduct an internal inquiry.
3. Court-Ordered Verification: Requesting the judge in the Maintenance Suit to summon the “Service Book” of the employee in question directly from the department.

Conclusion: The Path to Transparency

Identity theft in government jobs is a double-edged sword. It robs the state of legitimate service and robs the victim of their legal standing. The RTI Act must not be used as a shield by departments to hide administrative lapses or internal corruption.

For citizens like Indradev Yadav, the battle is not just about a piece of paper—it is about reclaiming their name and ensuring that the halls of public service are occupied by those who truly belong there.

---

How to Stay Safe

• Monitor your UAN/EPF: Regularly check if any Provident Fund contributions are being made in your name from unknown employers.
• Digitise your Records: Use DigiLocker to ensure your educational documents are verified and tied to your biometrics.
• Act Fast: If you suspect identity theft, file an RTI immediately and follow the appeal process strictly within the 30-day deadlines.

To help you track your appeal and communicate with the authorities regarding your case, here is a structured list of all the essential contact details and digital links.

1. Online Tracking & Portal Access

You can monitor the progress of your appeal or file further documents through the official Uttar Pradesh RTI portal.

• Portal Name: UP RTI Online
• Web Link: rtionline.up.gov.in
• Your Appeal Registration Number: DIRMH/A/2026/60093
• Your Original Request Number: DIRMH/R/2025/67269

---

2. Concerned Public Authorities (Contact Details)

There are three levels of authority involved in your case. If you do not hear back within 30 days, you should use these contact details to follow up.

Authority Level	Office / Designation	Name / Contact Info	Key Role
Appellate Authority	AD Mirzapur (Additional Director)	Mobile: 8005192626 Email: admhmzp1@gmail.com	The officer currently deciding your Appeal.
Nodal Officer	Director Health, Lucknow	Mobile: 9451679475 Email: dgmhsrti@gmail.com	Responsible for RTI monitoring at the State level.
Original PIO	CMO Mirzapur (Chief Medical Officer)	Mobile: 9454455171 Email: cmomzp@gmail.com	The officer who denied your first request.

---

3. Summary of Application IDs

Keep these numbers safe, as they are required for every login and future correspondence:

• First Appeal ID: DIRMH/A/2026/60093 (Filed on 16/01/2026)
• Original RTI ID: DIRMH/R/2025/67269 (Filed on 18/11/2025)

---

4. Important Tips for Communication

• When Calling: Always state your Appeal Registration Number first. Ask the clerk for the “Current Status” and “Date of Hearing.”
• When Emailing: Use the subject line: “Urgent: Follow-up on RTI Appeal DIRMH/A/2026/60093 – Indradev Yadav.”
• Evidence: Save a screenshot or PDF of your “Appeal Received” status page for your court records in the maintenance suit.

Would you like me to draft a professional follow-up email that you can send to the AD Mirzapur in two weeks to check on the status?