JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J.-Leave granted.

2. Whether the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’) could destroy the answer sheets/papers of the written examination in violation of the policy decision taken vide resolution dated 1.10.1994 and whether the High Court committed an error by dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the selection made by the Commission for recruitment of Lecturers in Hindi (Education Department) are the questions which arise for consideration in this appeal filed against judgment dated 29.6.2010 of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

3. In response to an advertisement issued by the Commission on 20.7.2006, the Appellant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste (SC) applied for the post of Lecturer in Hindi. At that time, she was having the qualifications of M.A. (Hindi), M.Phil. (Hindi) and Ph.D. in Hindi. She appeared in written examination conducted by the Commission, the result whereof was declared on 21.6.2008. She was interviewed along with other candidates who had cleared the written examination. The result of the selection was notified on 14.10.2008. The appellant’s name did not figure in the list of the successful candidates.

4. Immediately after declaration of the result of written examination, the appellant submitted an application to the Commission through her advocate under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) for supply of the details of the marks secured by the female candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, who had qualified the written examination. She repeated this request vide letter dated 28.7.2008. After three days the State Public Information Officer sent communication dated 31.7.2008 to the appellant’s advocate informing her that the marks of the candidates cannot be disclosed because final result of the selection was yet to be declared. The appellant filed an appeal before the Information Commissioner, Haryana, who advised her to file an appeal before the 1st Appellate Authority-cum- Secretary of the Commission. Thereupon, the appellant filed an appeal through her advocate, but the same was not decided. She then filed CWP No. 18946 of 2008 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 5.11.2008 and a direction was given to the Secretary of the Commission to decide the writ petition by treating it to be a representation and pass a speaking order. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Commission passed order dated 5.12.2008 and rejected the appellant’s representation on the ground that she had secured 117 marks out of 225 as against 119 marks secured by the last selected candidate of Scheduled Caste female category.

5. The appellant challenged the rejection of representation in CWP No. 136 of 2009 and prayed that the selection made by the Commission may be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondents to appoint her as Lecturer in Hindi against one of the posts reserved for Scheduled Caste (Female). The learned Single Judge took cognizance of the statement contained in the additional affidavit dated 18/23.9.2009 filed on behalf of the Commission that answer sheets of the written examination had been destroyed and observed that no mandamus can be issued for the appellant’s appointment because the marks of the written examination are available in the result sheet and she had not secured marks sufficient for her inclusion in the select list and no malafides had been alleged against the functionaries of the Commission. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal by reiterating the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge.

6. Before this Court, Shri P.D. Verma, Secretary, the Commission filed affidavit dated 20.1.2011, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:

“REPLY ON MERITS”

“2. That no question of law is involved in the present writ petition which requires adjudication by this Hon’ble Apex Court. It is respectf