ORDER

BY JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JM:-

1.The applicant, in this Original Application is challenging the selection of respondent No. 5 on the post of Junior Engineer QA ignoring the claim of the applicant for the said post.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicant was initially appointed on 06.01.1983 as Craftsman in the Corps of Electronic Mechanical Engineering (EME) and posted at 3 EME Centre, Bhopal. The applicant was promoted as Havildar Major (Technical HMT) after completion of 9 years of service and after passing entrance examination of Diploma in Armament Engineering. The applicant was further promoted as Naib Subedar Technical on 01.04.1999 and thereafter, he was promoted as Subedar Technical on 01.09.2003. The applicant was retired from service of Armed Force on 31.01.2013. After retirement . from Armed Force, the applicant was appointed as Fitter Skilled in the . pay scale of Rs.5,200-20,200/- + G.P. of Rs.1,900/ on 01.02.2013 in the 506 Army Base Workshop, Jabalpur against ex-serviceman quota. While working as Fitter Skilled in 506 Army Workshop, the applicant has received information that an advertisement has been issued by the O/o Respondent No.4 for the post of Junior Engineer (QA) in the pay band 2 of Rs.9,300-34,800/- + G.P. of Rs.4,200/-. A bare perusal of the advertisement clearly reveals that total 14 posts of Junior Engineer have been notified. Out of 14 posts, 7 posts were reserved for OBC and 7 posts were earmarked for UR. It is significant to note here that out 14 posts, 1 post was reserved for Ex-serviceman. Since the applicant was fulfilling all eligibility and qualification for the post of Junior Engineer, therefore, he also submitted his candidature against Ex-serviceman quota. The candidature of the applicant was accepted by the respondents. Accordingly, a call letter was issued in favour of the applicant whereby the applicant was called to participate in the examination on 30.6.2013. The result of written test was not published by the respondents for considerable long time, therefore, the applicant sought information under Right to Information Act on 31.8.2013, whereby he sought information about details of the marks obtained by him in the written examination. He also requested to provide him the cut off marks decided in the written examination. The applicant has also sought information to disclose the = number of candidates who have been called to participate in the “interview. After receiving the application of the applicant dated 31.8.2013 under Right to Information Act, the Public Relation Officer has directed the applicant to submit his identity proof. When the applicant submitted his identity proof, he was informed vide letter 14.09.2013 that selection process was not completed. The result of the selection was published in the website by the respondents on 22.11.2013, wherein the name of the applicant was not reflected. Therefore, he further submitted an application under Right to Information Act on 05.03.2014. The applicant was provided information on 19.03.2014, whereby it was informed that the applicant has obtained 57 marks out of 100 in the written examination. The information pertaining to cut off marks for the general and OBC candidates has been provided to him. However, the cut off marks fixed for Ex-serviceman has not been disclosed by the respondents deliberately. The applicant has preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority against non-providing him information as desired by him in his application dated 31.08.2013. The applicant was replied under Right to Information Act on 09.01.2015 that there is no provision for providing additional information which does not form part of the appeal. The applicant has received information in the month of May 2015 that the respondent No.5-Shri Rajit Ram has been appointed as Junior Engineer against Ex-serviceman quota on 02.05.2014, ignoring = the claim of the applicant.

3. The respondents have filed their reply, wherein it has