![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Thursday, Oct 26, 2006 ePaper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| National |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
National
Staff Reporter
NEW DELHI: The members of Transparency Seekers, an informal group of aggrieved candidates who had objections to selections in the Civil Services Preliminary Examination (CSPE) 2006 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), on Wednesday clarified that the Central Information Commission's (CIC's) direction to file another appeal within two days was not a general appeal on its part and only pertained to the proceedings going on in connection with the appeals filed by them. In pursuance of the CIC's directions, Transparency Seekers on Wednesday filed a fresh appeal - having the same demands of sharing cut-off marks in each subject and category, individual marks and model answer sheets - with the UPSC and also a complaint with the CIC in this connection. "The CIC had asked us to file a second appeal with the UPSC which had earlier rejected our application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. It had also directed us to file a simultaneous complaint with the Commission. It was not a general appeal," said Don Sunil, a member of Transparency Seekers. He further clarified that the CIC had given the direction in order to expedite the final decision in the case. Earlier, the CIC had called the UPSC officials to present their view on sharing information in two cases on October 16. While one of the cases was that of Rajnish Chaudhary, who appeared for the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Examination in 2002-2003, the second was the Transparency Seekers'. In Mr. Chaudhary's case, the CIC had asked the UPSC to share information about cut-off marks, individual marks and also the constitution of the interview panel. While the UPSC had requested the CIC to hear its views in Mr. Chaudhary's case, it had rejected the application of the Transparency Seekers at the first level. The Transparency Seekers had then appealed to the UPSC's appellate authority. On October 16, the UPSC had told the CIC that it was yet to dispose of the appeal of Transparency Seekers.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2006, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|