Krishan Kumar v. State Information Commission And ORS.

CWP No. 21802 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21802 of 2013 Date of decision : 31.07.2017 Krishan Kumar ....Petitioner V/s State Information Commission, Haryana & ors.

....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Ajay Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl. A.G. Hry.

RAJAN GUPTA J.

Petitioner has prayed for writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of orders, Annexures P-7, P-13 & P-16 passed by authorities below whereby information sought by him relating to selection to the post of conductor have not been provided to him. It has been urged before the court that inspite of repeated applications filed by him under the Act, respondents have failed to provide him the requisite information. Plea has been refuted by learned State counsel. He submits that information sought by petitioner has already been furnished to him.

It appears Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) issued Advertisement bearing No. 3/2009 Cat. No. 01 inviting application for 3837 posts of conductor in Haryana Roadways. Petitioner applied for the same and was issued Roll No. 015273 by the Commission. The selection was to be made on the basis of written test followed by interview. On 24.03.2011, HSSC declared the result of written test and name of the petitioner figured in the list of candidates who qualified for the interview. On 01.02.2012, HSSC Ajay Kumar 2017.08.16 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP No. 21802 of 2013 declared the final result. However, name of the petitioner was missing from the list. of selected candidates. Consequently, he applied for information under RTI Act. However, respondent no. 3 (SPIO) refused to supply the same on the ground that information sought by petitioner had no relation with any public activity or interest and was exempted under section 8(1)(J) of the Act. Petitioner again requested to provide the required information vide his letter dated 09.05.2012. As no information was supplied by SPIO, he filed an appeal before the First Appellate authority-cum-Secretary, HSSC, Panchkula. Said authority allowed the petitioner to inspection OMR sheet/Key of answer/Question paper of roll No. 015273 in the office of the Commission on 22.04.2013 after 3:00 P.M. On 25.04.

2013 petitioner inspected the requisite record for 20 minutes and noted down the detailed marks of the selected candidates. Dis-satisfied with the information supplied, he filed appeal before the State Information Commissioner, Haryana. The authority after hearing both the parties and perusing the record came to the conclusion that SPIO had furnished the existing and available information to the petitioner.

In my considered view no case for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. Petitioner has inspected the record and available information is in his knowledge. No further direction cannot be issued in the case. Petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. July 31, 2017 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Ajay Kumar 2017.08.16 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document