Back
2025 Supreme(KER) 849
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K.Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ.
Dr. Hari C.V., - Petitioner
Versus
Indian Institute of Information Technology and anr – Respondents
WA NO. 2078 of 2024
Decided On : 10-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. SHYAM KRISHNAN GENS GEORGE ELAVINAMANNIL N.B.SUNILNATH S.K.HARISH
For the Respondent: BY ADVS. Sajith Kumar V. ABI BENNY AREECKAL BEA MARY BENNY(K/000129/2021) ADV. SUMATHI DANDAPANI, SR. COUNSEL FOR IIIT
The remedy for obtaining information under the Right to Information Act must be pursued through that Act, not through a writ petition under Article 226.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Writ appeal against the order of the Single Judge closing the interlocutory application for production of documents related to selection process for Assistant Professor posts - The appellant alleged that the selection process was biased and sought various documents to support his claims - The Single Judge observed that the documents could be called for at the time of hearing if necessary - The appeal was dismissed as the order did not substantially affect the appellant's rights. (Paras 1, 4, 18, 21)
(B) Right to Information - The appellant's remedy for non-provision of information lies under the RTI Act, not through a writ petition - The court emphasized that the information sought was personal and exempt under the RTI Act. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 21)
Facts of the case:
The appellant participated in the selection process for Assistant Professor posts and alleged that the process was a sham, seeking various documents through an interlocutory application after being denied information under the RTI Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the Single Judge's order, which merely closed the interlocutory application without prejudice.
Issues: The main issues were whether the documents sought were necessary for the writ petition and whether the Single Judge's order affected the appellant's rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's remedy for obtaining the information lay under the RTI Act, and the order of the Single Judge did not substantially affect the appellant's rights.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's allegations regarding selection process (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments by appellant's counsel (Para 6) |
| 3. arguments by respondents' counsel (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
(Muralee Krishna, J.)
This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.26741 of 2024, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2024 passed in I.A. No.2 of 2024 filed in the writ petition, whereby the learned Single Judge closed the interlocutory application filed by the appellant seeking a direction against the 1st respondent Indian Institute of Information Technology, Kottayam to provide and produce certain informations/documents, observing that if the documents sought for by the petitioner are found required at the time of hearing, the Court can call for them.
2. The appellant, who participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor Grade-I and Assistant Professor Grade-II in the 1st respondent Institute, filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to: Ext P1 and Exts.P4 to P7 and Exts.P8 to P11, to the extent that they apply to the selection of Assistant Professor Grade II, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, IIIT, Kottayam;
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P1 and Exts.P4 to P7 and Exts.P8 to P11, to the extent that they apply to the selection of Assistant Professor Grade II, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, IIIT, Kottayam;
(iii) Declare that the selection and appointment of the candidates as per Ext.P7 is illegal and quash their appointments as illegal;
(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to enquire into the legality of the recruitment process for Assistant Professor Grade I & Assistant Professor Grade II, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, IIIT, Kottayam and take appropriate penal action against the 1st respondent;”
3. According to the appellant the entire selection process has been a sham for appointing the former ad hoc employees of the 1st respondent to the post of Assistant Professor Grade II. In the writ petition, the appellant filed I.A. No.2 of 2024 to direct the 1st respondent to provide and produce the following information-documents.
“(a) Separate mark-sheets of the written examination, power point presentation and interview of all the 25 candidates (shortlisted after the written test) for the afore mentioned post;
(b) Rank List for the afore mentioned post;
(c) Educational qualifications and working experience of respondents 5 to 16, the selected candidates;
(d) Number of Ad Hoc faculty members selected to the post of Assistant Professor Grade II;
(e) Separate marks scored by the petitioner in the written examination, power point presentation and interview;
(f) True copy of the petitioner's answer-sheet with marks awarded for each question;
(g) All the details of the members of the Interview Board, with name, designation and address;
(h) Separate marks awarded to the petitioner by each member of the Interview Board;
(i) The reason for not calling the petitioner for the interview for Assistant Professor Grade I, even after he had cleared the common written test;
(j) The Minutes and Video-Recording of the written examination, power point presentation & Interview of the candidates held on 07.11.2023 and 08.11.2023 and provisionally selected as per Ext. P6 for the afore mentioned post, so as to ascertain as to who among the members of the Interview Board was was present and whether the Registrar of the IIIT, Kottayam, was also present during the written exam, power point presentation & interview;
(k) True copy of the Appointment Orders Issued by the 1 respondent IIIT, Kottayam, either by E-mail or by Hand or by Post, to respondents 5 to 16, the selected can
