THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No. 28774 of 2008

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to call for the records in Appeal No.CIC/OK/A/2008/00740 on the file of respondent No.1 and quash the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by respondent No.1.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Inspite of service of notice, respondents did not turn up, hence set exparte.

Perused the record.

3. Petitioner-University issued Employment notification dated 01.02.2007 for filling up lecturer posts and pursuant to the said notification, 14 candidates were called for interview which was held on 26.04.2007 and a candidate was selected under visually handicapped quota and no candidate was selected under open category and the said post was suggested for re-advertisement. Respondent No.2 who was not even an applicant under the above notification filed an application on 27.07.2007 under Right to Information Act, 2005 and in response through order dated 03.10.2007, while answering queries, 1 to 4 were refused to be answered on the ground that the identity of the members of the Selection Committee cannot be disclosed as the same is confidential and against the same, respondent No.2 preferred and appeal before the first appellate authority and the appeal was allowed on 02.02.2008 and the Public Information Officer was directed to give the names of the members of the Selection Committee, the names of SC/ST representative expert in the said Selection Committee along with his subject and name of the department in the University to the appellant. Public Information Officer was also directed to quote the specific rule by which one expert in the selection committee must be SC/ST representative and all the information shall furnish before 30.12.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, Petitioner-

University filed the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that Employment notification dated 01.02.2007 for filling up lecturer posts and pursuant to the said notification, 14 candidates were called for interview which was held on 26.04.2007. Respondent No.2 who was not even an applicant under the above notification filed an application on 27.07.2007 to the Public Information Officer of the University and the same was refused and respondent No.2 preferred an appeal but the appellate authority directed the Public Information Officer to furnish the information and the said order is illegal. They have clearly mentioned that as per Section 8 (g) and (i) of the R.T.I Act they cannot disclose the information. It is further stated that if the names of external experts are exposed, the panel gets exhausted and it amounts to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the external experts and affects the prospects of the candidates attending the interview, as such petitioner preferred the writ petition.

5. Admittedly, respondent No.2 sought for information from the University and it was refused by the University as per Section 8 (g) and (i) of the R.T.I Act. The appellate authority directed the Public Information Officer to furnish the information, as such writ petition is preferred. Respondents even after receiving the notice did not turn up. The appellate authority without even considering the rule position allowed the appeal and directed the University to furnish the information though it was stated by them that the information is confidential and is contrary to the Section 8 (g) and (i) of the R.T.I Act. Therefore, the order of the first appellate authority is patently erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the respondent No.1 dated 12.12.2008 passed in Appeal No.CIC/OK/A/2008/00740. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATED: 01.05.2025

CHS

441 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA W.P No. 28774 of 2008 DATED: 01.05.2025 CHS