First appeal against CPIO postal department as CPIO either incompetent or deliberately made mockery

Registration Number
POSTS/A/2018/60058
Name
Yogi M P Singh
Date of Filing
14-01-2018
Appeal filed with
Department of Posts
 Contact Details  
Telephone Number
23036550
Email Id
rtiposts@indiapost.gov.in

From <https://rtionline.gov.in/appeal/appealSuccessful.php?regId=nyu9lsFlAxiv5ul%2Be7H2UgmVqNlA3LSgksc0aFe5V2k%3D&&urltoken=726c18ed91>

Enter Registration Number
POSTS/A/2018/60058
Name
Yogi M P Singh
Date of filing
14/01/2018
Public Authority
Department of Posts
Status
RTI APPEAL RECEIVED
Date of action
14/01/2018
Nodal Officer Details :-
Telephone Number
23036550
Email Id
rtiposts@indiapost.gov.in

From <https://rtionline.gov.in/request/status.php>

Online RTI Appeal Form Details 
RTI Appeal Details :-
RTI Appeal Registration number
POSTS/A/2018/60058
Public Authority
Department of Posts
Personal Details of Appellant:-
Request Registration Number
POSTS/R/2017/56279
Request Registration Date
02/12/2017
Name
Yogi M P Singh
Gender
Male
Address
Mohalla-Surekapuram , Jabalpur Road, District Mirzapur
Pincode
231001
Country
India
State
Uttar Pradesh
Status
Urban
Educational Status
Literate
Above Graduate
Phone Number
Details not provided
Mobile Number
+91-7379105911
Email-ID
yogimpsingh[at]gmail[dot]com
Appeal Details :-
Citizenship
Indian
Is the Requester Below Poverty Line ?
No
Ground For Appeal
Refused access to Information Requested
CPIO of Public Authority approached
Details not provided
CPIO’s Order/Decision Number
Details not provided
CPIO’s Order/Decision Date
(Description of Information sought (upto 500 characters)
Prayer or Relief Sought
Please take a glance at attached appeal in PDF form under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005.
Supporting document (only pdf upto 1 MB)

From <https://rtionline.gov.in/request/regdetails.php?regId=SsJE0LRRmGAc9IPK5%2Basvw%2FfFXFYFDmPvpQaJCJ4PvM%3D>
 An appeal under subsection 1 of section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005.

To
First appellate authority
Director postal services {HQ},
O/o Post Master General, Lucknow -226001
Subject -Rejected the R.T. I. Application on flimsy ground.
Hon’ble Sir -Your appellant invites the attention of the Hon’ble Sir to following submissions as follows.
1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that first you direct the CPIO to update the status of R.T.I. Application as today’s status is as follows.

Enter Registration Number
POSTS/R/2017/56279
Name
Yogi M P Singh
Date of filing
02/12/2017
Public Authority
Department of Posts
Status
REQUEST FORWARDED TO CPIO
Date of action
03/12/2017
Nodal Officer Details :-
Telephone Number
23036550
Email Id
rtiposts@indiapost.gov.in
Which ipso facto proves that your CPIO has no regard to prescribed duties and provisions of the act as not apprised to National portal dedicated to promotion to august act as not updated by him which was his obligatory duties.
2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that under point 1 your appellant sought information as follows.
1-Please provide detail about the update of website inviting online application for GDS by the department of the post in regard Uttar Pradesh circle.
According to CPIO, Sought information can’t be provided as question is not clear. Here CPIO cunningly concealed “obviously sought information in public interest” as they didn’t update the website concerned with the inviting application of aspirants by the recruiters quite obvious from fact that those registered one year earlier couldn’t update registration and on the ground of earlier registration but after the submissions of fee update of Mobile number couldn’t be allowed on the ground of fact that they one year earlier had submitted successful application for other states. Thus department amassed huge illegal money in the name of fee for application but actually application was not accepted. Whether the behaviours like robber of public staffs can be allowed in this largest democracy in the world? The root cause of not providing sought information is to avoid to be exposed in the public domain in regards to wrong deeds caused amassing huge money illegally.
3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that under point 2 your appellant sought information as follows.
2-Fee ID P888FD4B46CF13 Reference number- R6791D1891D8D application not submitted because the update of mobile not allowed as modifications not allowed after successful submission of application. Please make available details of the application submitted against aforementioned Fee ID.
Hon’ble Sir, CPIO made available information as -No information has been sought. According to incompetent CPIO, your appellant sought redressing of the grievance which is beyond the amenability under august act.
It seems that lenient to its allocated duties, lax and careless CPIO even didn’t think it appropriate to take perusal of supporting documents with the R.T. I. Application , ipso facto obvious that your appellant sought information regarding the action detail submitted before accountable public functionaries in the department which were annexed with the R.T.I. Application. Since concerned staffs as usual throw the grievances of common citizenry into the dustbin so CPIO made a childish reply in regard to aforementioned point. Consequently CPIO made the mockery of provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 so subject to appropriate penal proceedings in accordance with the law.
   This is a humble request of your appellant to you Hon’ble Sir that it can never be justified to overlook the rights of the citizenry by delivering services in an arbitrary manner by floating all set up norms. This is sheer mismanagement which is encouraging wrongdoers to reap the benefit of loopholes in the system and depriving poor citizens of the right to justice. Therefore it is need of the hour to take concrete steps in order to curb grown anarchy in the system. For this, your appellant shall ever pray you, Hon’ble Sir.
                                          Yours sincerely
                             Yogi M. P. Singh, Mobile number-7379105911, Mohalla-Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road District- Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, India.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh

According to CPIO, Sought information can’t be provided as question is not clear. Here CPIO cunningly concealed “obviously sought information in public interest” as they didn’t update the website concerned with the inviting application of aspirants by the recruiters quite obvious from fact that those registered one year earlier couldn’t update registration and on the ground of earlier registration but after the submissions of fee update of Mobile number couldn’t be allowed on the ground of fact that they one year earlier had submitted successful application for other states. Thus department amassed huge illegal money in the name of fee for application but actually application was not accepted. Whether the behaviours like robber of public staffs can be allowed in this largest democracy in the world? The root cause of not providing sought information is to avoid to be exposed in the public domain in regards to wrong deeds caused amassing huge money illegally.

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M. P. Singh

There is rampant corruption in the system so public authority through its CPIO conceal the sought information so it's wrongdoer staffs may be shielded.

Arun Pratap Singh
2 years ago

Hon’ble Sir, CPIO made available information as -No information has been sought. According to incompetent CPIO, your appellant sought redressing of the grievance which is beyond the amenability under august act.
It seems that lenient to its allocated duties, lax and careless CPIO even didn’t think it appropriate to take perusal of supporting documents with the R.T. I. Application , ipso facto obvious that your appellant sought information regarding the action detail submitted before accountable public functionaries in the department which were annexed with the R.T.I. Application. Since concerned staffs as usual throw the grievances of common citizenry into the dustbin so CPIO made a childish reply in regard to aforementioned point. Consequently CPIO made the mockery of provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 so subject to appropriate penal proceedings in accordance with the law.

Preeti Singh
2 years ago

Stupid don't know that information has been sought concerned with the redressal of the grievance instead of seeking redressal because of incompetence of CPIO information seekers are suffering which is due to negligence of accountable public functionaries of the department concerned.