ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records leading to the passing of the impugned order passed by the first respondent by order dated 31.05.2017 in S.A.- 127/Maa.Tha.Aaa/2017 confirming the order passed by the second respondent vide No.5778/RID-3/2016 dated 27.12.2016, confirming the order passed by the third respondent in No.5778/RID3/ED-A1/2016, dated 02.11.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue the answer sheets.

2.The case of the Writ Petitioner is that he appeared for the examination conducted by the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission (in short TNPSC) on 26.08.2021, as per notification dated 25.06.2012, for filling up 17 vacancies in the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to produce attested copies of certificates and the same was also produced by him. Subsequent to that, the recruitment process was stalled for no reason and in the year 2015, a list of 42 selected candidates was published and in the said publication there were several anamolies, as such, the candidates category was not mentioned. Therefore, he made an application under RTI Act, to the third respondent seeking to furnish his answer sheet along with the answer sheets of 19 other selected candidates by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the examination held on 26.08.2012. However, the third respondent refused to furnish the same. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent also refused to furnish the information sought by the petitioner. Against which, the second appeal was preferred before the first respondent and the said appeal also came to be dismissed. Therefore, without any other option the petitioner approached this Court.

3.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for informations sought by him. He is not only asking for his answer sheet but also the answer sheets of other candidates who appeared for the examination held on 26.08.2012, for which, the petitioner is not entitled as per Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. The answer sheet of the petitioner was furnished to him on 26.02.2020 and 21.09.2020. Furthermore, the information sought by the petitioner does not comes under the definition of “information” as defined in Clause No.2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 reiterated the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and by referring the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission vs. Gourhari Kamila reported in 2014 13 SCC 653, submitted that the plea of the petitioner cannot be entertained.

Therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and perused the materials available on record.

6.Upon hearing, it appears that the petitioner participated in the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for filing up the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector of Police Grade II on 26.08.2012 and the result was released in the year 2015, wherein, it was declared that 42 candidates were selected for the said post. Since the petitioner had suspicion in result and the selection process, he made an application under RTI, for the purpose of getting the answer sheets of the candidates who participated for the examination held on 26.08.2012. Since the respondents rejected the request of the petitioner, he approached this Court.

7.The interesting question crept herein is, whether the petitioner is entitled to get the answer sheets of the other candidates who appeared for the examination along with him on 26.08.2012? Th