IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.12857 of 2008 Date of Decision : 03.11.2009 Haryana Public Service Commission ...Petitioner Versus State Information Commission, Haryana ...Respondents and another CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. D.K.Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Haryana Public Service Commission has filed the writ petition praying that Annexure P-9 order passed by the State Information Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, whereby the petitioner was directed to supply information, be quashed. The petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that respondent No.1 was not justified to direct the petitioner to supply the information in view of the judgments of this Court and of Hon'ble Apex Court and the information sought by respondent No.2 was confidential in nature. The petitioner is relying upon judgment Annexure P-11 given by the Hon'ble Apex Court. A perusal of Annexure P-11 shows that the Lordships while dismissing the S.L.P. has held that no legal right vested in the petitioner to that Special Leave Petition to demand criteria adopted for selection. Another judgment relied upon is Annexure P-12 in which the High Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the Punjab Public Service Commission to inform the non-selected candidates of the marks obtained by them and on S.L.P. filed by the Punjab Public Service C.W.P.No.12857 of 2008 -2- Commission, the order of this Court was reversed and it was held that there was no procedure prescribed in the Rules to justify issuance of direction by this Court that the non-selected candidates be informed the marks obtained by them. The order of the Lordships in Annexure P-12 will not come to the rescue of the petitioner because that was passed before the Right to Information Act was enacted. Annexure P-11 also not adjudicated upon the rights of the parties to take information under the Right to Information Act, whereas in a similar writ petition referred to by the petitioner Annexure P-16, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the petitioner is bound to disclose the criteria adopted for selection of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and the marks allotted for academic qualification. A perusal of judgment Annexure P-16 shows that their Lordships had considered the entire gammut of facts and the legal provisions and had come to the conclusion that clause of 'confidentiality' cannot be invoked by the petitioner to deny the information. Mr. Sunil Nehra, counsel appearing for the State, has further stated that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Annexure P-16) was assailed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.20898 of 2008 and the judgment of Division Bench was affirmed. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to distinguish the judgment Annexure P-16, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of the above, this Court would not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Dismissed. No order as to costs. 03.11.2009 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) Vimal JUDGE