The Hindu: Amaravati: Sunday, 11 May 2025.
Through an administrative order, Mahaboob Basha asserts that the appointment made by the Chief Secretary without consulting the APIC contravenes both the Right to Information Act and G.O. 122
In a strongly worded
administrative order dated May 9, 2025, State Chief Information Commissioner
(SCIC) R. Mahaboob Basha restrained V. Anjaneyulu, IRTS, from functioning as
Secretary (Full Additional Charge) of the Andhra Pradesh Information Commission
(APIC), citing serious procedural violations.
Escalating the friction between the State Government and the APIC, Mr. Basha asserted that the appointment made by Chief Secretary K. Vijayanand “without consulting the APIC” contravenes both the Right to Information Act, 2005, and G.O. Ms. No. 122 dated September 6, 2017.
He emphasised that as per Section 16(6) of the RTI Act, the State Government was required to provide officers and staff to the SCIC and the State Information Commissioners to ensure efficient functioning, and in a manner that safeguarded the independence and autonomy of the Commission.
“This is the first time in
the history of the APIC that the office of the Principal Secretary to
Government, General Administration Department (GAD), initiated the appointment
process for the post of Secretary without consulting the APIC,” Mr. Basha said
in the order.
“The APIC has always recruited its staff through the SCIC, with subsequent approval from the government,” he said.
The SCIC mentioned that the GAD had instructed departmental heads to nominate candidates for the post independently, a move that he described as a “breach of long-standing conventions and administrative norms.”
Mr. Basha said though the office was “shocked” by the development, it initially refrained from objecting in the hope that the GAD would adhere to the earlier practice by consulting the Commission.
He criticised the appointment of Mr. Anjaneyulu, who is already serving on deputation as Director, Insurance Medical Services, for being in clear violation of the 2017 G.O., which stipulated that the Secretary to APIC should only be appointed either on deputation or contract.
“The G.O. does not empower the government to assign Full Additional Charge to an officer already serving elsewhere on deputation,” Mr. Basha said.
He further said that Mr. Anjaneyulu visited the APIC office and claimed to have assumed charge as Secretary. However, upon being advised to submit a formal joining report and await clearance from the SCIC, he left without completing the process. The SCIC further alleged that Mr. Anjaneyulu had since been entering the Commission’s premises unauthorisedly, reprimanding staff, and issuing directives in defiance of protocol.
“An officer cannot function independently as Secretary of APIC without the approval of the SCIC,” Mr. Basha asserted. “The APIC cannot blindly allow any officer deployed by the government to assume charge unless it is satisfied with his or her suitability to serve in an autonomous and quasi-judicial institution,” he added.
Invoking Section 15(4) of the RTI Act, Mr. Basha underscored the Commission’s responsibility to restrain any action that undermined the authority and dignity of the SCIC’s office.
He also suggested the State Government to refrain from deputing officers who, he said, “do not know how to conduct themselves in an autonomous and independent quasi-judicial authority like the APIC.”
The government was yet to react to the development. Meanwhile, officials at various levels in the government observed that the SCIC could not deny the appointment of the officers as the government had the mandate to provide staff for the functioning of the office.
Through an administrative order, Mahaboob Basha asserts that the appointment made by the Chief Secretary without consulting the APIC contravenes both the Right to Information Act and G.O. 122
 |
| State Chief Information Commissioner R. Mahaboob Basha. Photo Credit: File Photo |
Escalating the friction between the State Government and the APIC, Mr. Basha asserted that the appointment made by Chief Secretary K. Vijayanand “without consulting the APIC” contravenes both the Right to Information Act, 2005, and G.O. Ms. No. 122 dated September 6, 2017.
He emphasised that as per Section 16(6) of the RTI Act, the State Government was required to provide officers and staff to the SCIC and the State Information Commissioners to ensure efficient functioning, and in a manner that safeguarded the independence and autonomy of the Commission.
“The APIC has always recruited its staff through the SCIC, with subsequent approval from the government,” he said.
The SCIC mentioned that the GAD had instructed departmental heads to nominate candidates for the post independently, a move that he described as a “breach of long-standing conventions and administrative norms.”
Mr. Basha said though the office was “shocked” by the development, it initially refrained from objecting in the hope that the GAD would adhere to the earlier practice by consulting the Commission.
He criticised the appointment of Mr. Anjaneyulu, who is already serving on deputation as Director, Insurance Medical Services, for being in clear violation of the 2017 G.O., which stipulated that the Secretary to APIC should only be appointed either on deputation or contract.
“The G.O. does not empower the government to assign Full Additional Charge to an officer already serving elsewhere on deputation,” Mr. Basha said.
He further said that Mr. Anjaneyulu visited the APIC office and claimed to have assumed charge as Secretary. However, upon being advised to submit a formal joining report and await clearance from the SCIC, he left without completing the process. The SCIC further alleged that Mr. Anjaneyulu had since been entering the Commission’s premises unauthorisedly, reprimanding staff, and issuing directives in defiance of protocol.
“An officer cannot function independently as Secretary of APIC without the approval of the SCIC,” Mr. Basha asserted. “The APIC cannot blindly allow any officer deployed by the government to assume charge unless it is satisfied with his or her suitability to serve in an autonomous and quasi-judicial institution,” he added.
Invoking Section 15(4) of the RTI Act, Mr. Basha underscored the Commission’s responsibility to restrain any action that undermined the authority and dignity of the SCIC’s office.
He also suggested the State Government to refrain from deputing officers who, he said, “do not know how to conduct themselves in an autonomous and independent quasi-judicial authority like the APIC.”
The government was yet to react to the development. Meanwhile, officials at various levels in the government observed that the SCIC could not deny the appointment of the officers as the government had the mandate to provide staff for the functioning of the office.
.JPG)
.JPG)
