Naga Tribal Union Chümoukedima Town (NTUCT) has appealed to chief information commissioner (CIC) of the State to direct the police department to furnish appointment orders of 1,140 backdoor appointed constables, appointment orders of 208 candidates recruited through open advertisement and impose penalty on public information officer (PIO) of the department for refusing to share documents despite filing an application in this regard under Right to Information (RTI) Act.
In a letter to CIC, NTUCT president Lhousito Khro said the union had filed an application before the public information officer on March 3, 2020 seeking furnishing of appointment orders of 1,140 alleged backdoor appointed constables and detail particulars of 206 or 208 candidates selected and appointed through open recruitment with their names, chest numbers and district wise.
However, as the public information officer failed to furnish the documents even after expiry of 30-day mandatory period, the union stated that it had appealed to the director general of police (DGP), who is the department’s appellate authority. Thereafter, the appellate authority took up hearing on June 17, 2020 and ordered the public information officer to promptly reply to the RTI.
The letter stated despite the DGP’s order, the public information officer defiantly refused to share the documents by stating that the information sought did not meet any public interest or activity and quoted Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act.
Besides the 208 appointments made through open advertisement, NTUCT alleged that the police department also made 1,140 backdoor appointments, adding that these recruits were about to be sent to Nagaland Armed Police Training Centre (NAPTC), Chümoukedima, for undergoing training.
The union said it had opposed the move to train these illegal recruits in the interest of public service and pursuing the RTI tirelessly to stop corruption through such backdoor appointments.
NTUCT contended that any appointment made by the State government were in the interest of public service and in no way attracts Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, which excludes disclosure of personal information or invasion of privacy of a person, and not otherwise, adding the public information officer was apparently mala fide obstructing justice.