The Uttarakhand High Court has recently instructed the Centre to submit records detailing the process and decision-making behind the empanelment of Sanjeev Chaturvedi (IFS) for the role of Joint Secretary at the Centre.

The dispute concerns the Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC) decision on 15.11.2022, which did not approve the appointment of Sanjeev Chaturvedi and another officer to the post of Joint Secretary or an equivalent position at the Centre.

Initially, Sanjeev Chaturvedi approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to obtain details of the decision-making process. However, CAT declined to instruct the Centre to provide the records, citing confidentiality under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, which exempts such disclosures.

Subsequently, a Writ Petition was filed before the High Court, requesting that the records sought by Chaturvedi under the RTI Act be provided to him. Granting Chaturvedi’s plea, who was representing himself, the bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Alok Kumar Verma passed the following order:

“However, keeping in view that the petitioner has sought his own record, a direction is being given to the respondents to give the record relating to the process and decision making of the empanelment of the petitioner at the level of the Joint Secretary, who took the decision on 15.11.2022.”

The Court clarified that only the records specifically related to Chaturvedi's empanelment would be provided to him. In his petition, Chaturvedi emphasized his notable contributions during his tenure in various roles, including as Chief Vigilance Officer at AIIMS, New Delhi, as well as the recognition he received from the Health Ministry. He also cited four Presidential orders passed in his favor during his time in Haryana.

The petitioner argued that, under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, the decision regarding the officer's empanelment by the Cabinet should be made public once the decision had been taken and the matter was concluded.

The Court's direction to provide the records of the decision-making process regarding the officer's empanelment marks a significant step toward promoting transparency in the appointment process. This decision, being one of its first kind, sets an important precedent for greater openness in such matters.

Case Title: Sanjiv Chaturvedi v. Union Of India, WPSB No. 295 of 2024