THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 2193 of 2010. ORDER: (Per GR,J) This writ petition, by an unsuccessful applicant, is directed against the order dt. 27.11.2010 of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) rejecting O.A.No. 2246 of 2007. The petitioner applied for appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher pursuant to the District Selection Committee (DSC) notification of 1998. She passed the written examination and was called for interview in May 1998 but was not selected. She has applied as a BC-B candidate. In 2005, the petitioner learnt that she secured higher marks than the last selected candidate under B.C-B category (to which category she belongs). She also learnt that she was erroneously considered as a B.C-C candidate in which category she no doubt secured lesser marks than the last selected candidate in that category. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation dt. 6.5.2005 to the Official respondents. The District Education Officer, Guntur addressed a letter dt. 6.6.2005 to the Director of School Education forwarding the petitioner’s representation and stating that on verification of the merit list of DSC 1998, it is noticed that the petitioner’s Caste was mentioned as BC-C and to verify whether in her application her community/caste is mentioned as B.C.-B or B.C.-C, the original application of the petitioner for DSC 1998 must be verified but the original application of the petitioner is not traced. Since eight years had elapsed, the then District Education Officer might have disposed of the applications, particularly as no court cases were pending against the recruitment of DSC 1998. In this letter dt. 6.6.2005 the D.E.O. Guntur sought appropriate instructions to deal with the representation of the petitioner. Since nothing transpired thereafter, the petitioner eventually applied to the Tribunal by way of O.A.No. 2246 of 2007 seeking a direction in substance, that she be appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher with seniority over similarly situated persons who were recruited under 1998 DSC. The Tribunal by the order impugned rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that she failed to expeditiously seek a remedy in respect of a grievance pertaining to the selections under DSC of 1998. In substance, the Tribunal held that the application O.A.No. 2246 of 2007 is belated and the clock cannot be set back and relief sought for granted. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and requires to be corrected under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is strenuously contended that there was no transparency in the 1998 DSC selections. The Hall Tickets issued to the candidates did not disclose the community status of the candidates. The results of the selection were not publicly displayed and therefore there was no opportunity for the petitioner to apprehend that her non-selection was occasioned by a serious administrative error in treating her as BC-C candidate instead of a BC- B candidate. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, only in the year 2005 the petitioner learnt that the last candidate in the BC-B category, who was selected, had secured lesser marks than her. The petitioner therefore represented to all the relevant authorities and thereafter approached the Tribunal expeditiously in 2007. The learned Counsel would further contend that Section 17 of the Limitation Act 1963 enjoins that where in case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed under that Act and the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is found is concealed by the fraud of any such person; the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake or where any document necessary to establish the right of plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production. By reference to Section 17 of the Limitation Act, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that since the State and its Agency had adopted opaque methods in the DSC of 1998 selections, the petitioner was deprived of the relevant knowledge, as to her erroneous non-selection and therefore cause of action could not be considered to have commenced till the date of discovery of the illegality by her. Section 17 of the Limitation Act in our considered view has no application to the facts of the present case. Consequent on her non- selection in DSC 1998, the petitioner could have made enquiries or litigated for information as to why she was not selected. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the right to apply for information accrued to the petitioner pursuant to the Right Information Act 2005. This contention does not commend acceptance by this Court. The Right to Information Act 2005 is a legislative recognition of the Constitutional obligation of the State as a Democratic Institution under the Constitutional architecture qua Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 and other provisions of the Constitution, which place a citizen at the core of Indian Democracy. The provisions of the Right to Information Act merely effectuated the right of citizens available under the several provisions of the Indian Constitution. For the petitioner to contend that the citizens’ right to seek information from the State, information that is relevant and vital to the enjoyment of his rights, is a creation of the Right to Information Act 2005, is a fallacious assumption. The Tribunal has rightly found that the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal for the relief expeditiously and was guilty of delay and laches in approaching for relief. On the aforesaid analysis, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _______________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 28.06.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 2193 of 2010. DT. 28.06.2010.