Back
2011 Supreme(All) 257
[2011(2) ADJ 280 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNIL AMBWANI AND MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI, JJ.
RAM KRIPAL TRIPATHI ….Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR GENERAL AND OTHERS ….Respondents
(Special Appeal No. 1453 of 2008, decided on 29th January, 2011)
Counsel :
Sanjay Mishra, Manish Kumar Nigam, Sudhir Kumar Tripathi (Petitioner in Person) for the Appellant; Amit Sthalekar, Yashwant Varma, Santosh Kumar Pandey, S.P. Singh and Rajeev Gupta for the Respondents.
Headnote:Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976—Rule 9(1)(a), 10, 10-A—Selection—Telephone Operator—Requisite qualification—Challenge against—Appellant aggrieved by judgment of Single Judge by which he dismissed to petition challenging the selection made by Court, for post of Telephone Operator, in which respondent No. 3 was selected—Both educational qualification and experience are essential for the post—Designation and certificates of respondent No. 3 in Indian Navy clearly demonstrates that he had experience of working as Radio Mechanic and not Radio Operator—Both technology are different in nature—Telephone lines operates on wire and radio operations work on radio frequency—Thus, respondent No. 3 erroneously has been selected—Appellant has been discriminated—Held that selection of respondent No. 3 was not valid as he did not possess requisite experience as provided in Rule 9—Impugned selection set aside—Directions issued. [Paras 15 to 23]
By the Court.—We have heard Shri Ram Kripal Tripathi appearing in person. Shri Rajiv Gupta appears for the Registrar General, High Court. Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey appears for Shri Surya Prakash Singh-respondent No. 3.
2. The petitioner- appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge by which he dismissed the writ petition challenging the selection made by the Court, for the post of Telephone Operator, and in which Shri Surya Prakash Singh-respondent No. 3 was selected and appointed.
3. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition No. 48549 of 2008 on the ground firstly that the petitioner’s contention that Shri Surya Prakash Singh was not qualified for appointment was based on his personal knowledge, and secondly the selection was made by Selection Committee of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court, who had found that Shri Surya Prakash Singh-respondent No. 3 was duly qualified and eligible, and thus keeping in view the report of the committee on the basis of which the appointment was made, no interference was called for. The petitioner-appellant has filed amendment application to add certain facts and grounds on 7.12.2009 including the documents namely the application made by Shri Surya Prakash Singh-respondent No. 3 disclosing his qualifications and experience, trade certificate issued by Indian Navy on 30th July, 2007, and the certificate dated 31st July, 2007 of Shri Surya Prakash Singh issued by Shri J.S. Walia, Commander, Officer-in-Charge, Release Centre. He has also annexed the certificate issued to him for resettlement on being released from service by the Air Headquarter, Vayu Banwan, New Delhi on 25th September, 2006 and the certificate of Indian Air Force dated 15.4.2009 for having successfully completed the prescribed training and to have passed requisite examination on CTI, Bangalore for quoting his post with Supervisor (Telephone Exchange).
4. The petitioner has also filed supplementary affidavit with which he has annexed the replies received from Indian Navy with regard to the qualifications of Shri Surya Prakash Singh-respondent No. 3 By letter dated 7.4.2010 the Commander at Arms CDR-AT-Arms, Public Information Officer (Navy) informed him that Shri Surya Prakash Singh has expressed his unwillingness to provide information and since the information sought by him is a third party information, it is exempt from disclosure under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In appeal against the order the appellate authority also refused to disclose the information as Shri Surya Prakash Singh Ex-POELAR had expressed unwillingness to provide the information. The petitioner was, however, informed by PIU, Navy that the word Ex-POELAR stands for (retired) “Petty Officer Electrician Air Radio”. The petitioner-appellant, thereafter, took up the matter to Central Information Commissioner. It is submitted that by the date of decision: 30.8.2010 the Central Information Commissioner also did not give the information and evaded the issue by stating as follows :
“We have heard the parties. During the hearing, Cdr. Gupta submits that Surya Prakash Singh, retired as POELAR. He elaborates that PO stands for Petty Officer; EL for Electrician and AR for Air Radio. He also submits that this has been duly conveyed to the appellant vide their letter dated 30.6.2010.
The appellant, however, is not satisfied with this. He wishes the CPIO to elaborate this abbreviation alphabet-wise. The request of the appellant is fair and reasonable. The CPIO is hereby directed to give details of the abbreviation POELAR to the appellant in 02 weeks time.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner”
We summoned and perused the records of selection.
5. Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice by his order dated 18.12.2004 constituted a Committee to fill up 4 vacant posts of Telephone Operators in the establishment of the High Court. The Registry advertised vacancies inviting applications in which two posts were permanent
