Here are the key takeaways from the blog post regarding your ongoing legal battle with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Assessing Accountability in this context is especially important to understand the main challenges involved.

1. The Basis of the Dispute: Factual Error (Assessing Accountability)

• The core issue is that the Commission dismissed your appeal on 04-09-2025. This dismissal was based on a false claim by the PIO that you filed “no objections”.
• Digital evidence proves you submitted a detailed objection via email on 18/07/2025, which was officially recorded under Diary No. D-180720250124.

2. The PIO’s “Termination” Defense

• The PIO is attempting to block the release of information. The claim is that the recruitment process for 17,000+ vacancies has been “terminated”.
• The blog emphasizes that project termination does not negate the duty to provide records of past processes. It also emphasizes the duty to provide the identities of the “Competent Level” decision-makers.

3. The Legal Remedy: Rule 12 Recall

• You have invoked Rule 12 of the U.P. Information Officer Rules, 2015, which allows the Commission to recall an order passed due to a misunderstanding of facts.
• The current goal is to have the original appeal restored to its original number for a fresh and fair hearing.

4. Demand for Penal Action for Assessing Accountability

• The case seeks more than just information. It demands penal action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. This action is against the PIO for intentionally misleading the Commission.
• A request has been made for disciplinary action. The PIO failed to bring your objections to the Court’s notice.

5. Upcoming Milestone (Assessing Accountability)

• The next critical step is the online hearing scheduled for 03/02/2026 in Room S-2.
• Your formal representation for this hearing is already in the system under Diary No. D-010220260028.

Justice Delayed: Challenging Misleading Facts in the UP Information Commission and Assessing Accountability

In the pursuit of transparency through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, administrative errors often block the path to accountability. When assessing accountability, misleading submissions also contribute to this issue. A critical case is currently before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Court S-2). It highlights how “factual errors” can lead to the wrongful dismissal of appeals. The case also underscores the urgent need for legal “Order Recall”.

---

The Core Conflict: A Wrongful Dismissal (Assessing Accountability )

The heart of the issue lies in an order passed on 04-09-2025 regarding Second Appeal No. S02/A/0406/2025. The Commission dismissed the case. This was based on a claim by the Public Information Officer (PIO). The claim was that the appellant had filed “no objections” after being provided with information. In cases such as this, careful assessing accountability becomes absolutely essential to uncover the truth behind dismissal decisions.

The digital evidence directly contradicts this. On 18/07/2025, the appellant submitted a detailed point-wise objection via email. The Commission officially recorded this in its registry under Diary No. D-180720250124.

The “Termination” Diversion

A recurring hurdle in this case is the PIO’s assertion. They claim that the recruitment process for over 17,000 contractual vacancies (including Staff Nurse and ANM positions) has “terminated”. The PIO argues that, since they have closed the project, they do not require any further information. On closer inspection, assessing accountability for procedural closure is vital, as records must be evaluated even after termination.

The Appellant’s Counter-Argument:

• Termination of a project does not erase past records.
• RTI seeks the identity of the “Competent Level” authorities. These authorities were responsible for the approval mechanism and delays while the process was active.
• Public records regarding decision-makers and administrative delays must remain accessible to ensure accountability for past actions. In public administration, assessing accountability is necessary to guarantee fairness and transparency.

Seeking Redress: The Power of Rule 12

To rectify this, the appellant has invoked Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Information Officer Rules, 2015. This rule allows the appellant to file an Order Recall Application. They may do so when the decision-makers reach a decision based on a misunderstanding of facts. It also applies when the authorities do not hear the applicant through no fault of their own. Notably, robust assessing of accountability is at the centre of the appellant’s argument for review.

The Current Status of Petition S02/P/0178/2025:

• Hearing Date: 03/02/2026.
• Latest Evidence: On 01/02/2026, we submitted a formal representation (Diary No. D-010220260028) to reiterate the existence of the original objections. Continued assessing accountability in light of updated evidence ensures a comprehensive hearing for the parties involved.

---

Demanding Accountability: Section 20 of the RTI Act

This case isn’t just about getting information; it’s about penalizing the willful suppression of facts. The appellant is praying for the Commission to:

1. Recall the erroneous dismissal order.
2. Restore the appeal for a fresh hearing on its merits. Systematic assessing of accountability would support calls for a proper review of the PIO’s conduct.
3. Initiate Penal Action under Section 20(1) against the PIO for providing misleading facts to the Court.

Conclusion: Transparency is Not Optional

Government officials must never use the “termination” of a program as a shield. They should not hide their identities or conceal the reasons for administrative failures. This case is moving to its next hearing in Room S-2. The focus remains on ensuring that the digital paper trail dictates the course of justice. It should not rely on the misleading verbal claims of the PIO. In conclusion, proper assessing accountability is indispensable for ensuring that transparency prevails in all proceedings.

Based on the documents provided, here are the identification details, contact information, and web links for the public authorities involved in your case:

1. Case & Application Identifiers for Assessing Accountability

• Original File Number: S02/A/0406/2025
• Appeal Registration Number: A-20250200932
• Recall Petition Number: S02/P/0178/2025
• Recall Registration Number: P-20251002362
• RTI Application Registration No: NHMIS/R/2025/80080
• Evidence Diary Number (KOF): D-180720250124
• Latest Representation Diary Number: D-010220260028

---

2. Public Authority Contact Details

Authority	Name/Designation	Email Address	Mobile/Phone
State Information Commission	Shri Sudhir Kumar Singh (Room S-2)	hearingcourts2.upic@up.gov.in	Not listed on forms
Public Information Officer (NHM)	Shri S.V.P. Pankaj (DGM)	jansuchnaadhikariupnhm@gmail.com	9452867571

---

3. Web Links & Portal Details

• Official NHM Portal: www.upnrhm.gov.in (Referenced for recruitment notifications)
• UP Information Commission Portal: upsic.up.gov.in (For tracking appeal status and joining online hearings)
• Evidence Submission Portal: Digital representation link from your submission: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=423f69194e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-2139073458609248550&simpl=msg-a:r-4505430464...

---

4. Physical Address of Concerned Office

• PIO Office: Upmahaprabandhak NDC NHM, Public Information Officer Office – U.P. Health System Strengthening Project, Lucknow, Pin Code: 226001.
• Commission Office: 7/7/ए, RTI भवन, विभूती खंड, गोमती नगर, लखनऊ (7/7/A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow).