The decision of the State Government to discontinue the pension of State Information Commissioners has sparked a debate with observers stating that if the State justifies its stand, it would also mean that those appointed to this post so far since 2010 were not eligible for appointment to the post of State Information Commissioner.
If the State Government's stand is to be believed, all those appointed to the post of information commissioners were not eligible for the same under the Right to Information Act section 15 (4). It has often been alleged by some that political allegiance is a major criterion for appointment to this post in Uttarakhand.
The ineligibility of those appointed information commissioners since 2010 in Uttarakhand was revealed by information received under the RTI Act by RTI activist Nadim Uddin. As per this information provided by the General Administration department, under the RTI Act 2005 section 15 (4), a person must fulfil two conditions for being appointed to this post.
He or she should firstly be a well-known member of society and secondly have extensive knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service management, journalism or administration.
According to Nadim Uddin, "This information makes it clear that the high-powered committee comprising Chief Minister, leader of Opposition and a member nominated by the CM, which recommends candidates for appointment to the post of information commissioner did not even consider the two qualifications while making its recommendations. Even the candidates for the post of information commissioner did not make any clear mention in their bio-data of their knowledge or experience in a particular field or fame in society.
The information has also made it clear that no particular procedure has been followed or bio-data of candidates been invited through publication of advertisement for appointment of information commissioners till date. This time again, the authorities appear to be planning to make similar appointments as information sought regarding procedure underway for appointments was not provided citing it to be under section 8 of the act," he added.