Amit Dahiya v. Union Of India And ORS.

$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5523/2026 and CM APPL. 27066/2026 AMIT DAHIYA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Deepak Mehra and Mr. Vikshit Kumar and Mr.

Vikas kumar, Advocates.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

.....Respondents Through:

Ms. Akanksha Gupta (SPC) and Adv.

Himanshu Chaudhary (GP) for RUOI.

Mr. Abhishek Gupta CGSC with Mr.Kumar Kartikeya, Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Mr Chanakya Kene, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 24.04.2026 CM APPL. 27065/2026 (for exemption) 1.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5523/2026 and CM APPL. 27066/2026 1.

The instant petition is for the following reliefs:- "a) Issue direction to respondents to produce/provide answer-books of the petitioner in regard to the descriptive paper for the post of Section Officer (SO) & Assistant section Officer (ASO); b) direction to produce/provide the certified copy of answer The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

books/answer sheet of the petitioner;

c) Issue appropriate direction directing the Central Information Commission to expeditiously dispose of the Second Appeal filed by the Petitioner within a stipulated time period, as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

d) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2.

The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner appeared in the CSIR Combined Administrative Services Examination-2023 for the post of Section Officer (SO) & Assistant section Officer (ASO). The petitioner requested the respondents to provide copies of the evaluated answer sheet. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents refused to provide the same without assigning any valid justification. The petitioner submits that he has earlier approached this Court challenging the introduction of qualifying marks in PaperIII by way of a petition bearing W.P.(C) 17623/2025 along with other connected matters, which were dismissed by this Court. He further submits that on 09.08.2025, the petitioner filed the last RTI to the Central Public Information Officer ('CPIO') i.e. respondent no.2 herein, which was rejected on 01.09.2025.

Pursuant thereto, he filed the First Appeal, which was also dismissed on 25.09.2025. Thereafter, the Second Appeal was also filed before the Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission ('CIC'), however, no information has been provided to him till date. Therefore, he has filed the instant petition.

3.

A perusal of the overall facts and circumstances of the instant case would indicate that the matter has travelled upto CIC, where the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending. The Court, thus, finds that the CIC has to decide the petitioner's pending Second Appeal with due expedition.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

4.

Accordingly, it is directed that the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner be decided by the CIC within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed today. 5.

With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 24, 2026 Nc The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.