IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11736 of 2008 Between: B. Ramesh, S/o. Narsaiah, R/o. H.No. 1-8, Uppalancha Village of Shali Gowraram Mandal of Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Public Relation Officer/Administrative Officer, Police Recruitment Board, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Lakidikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Public Information Officer/Inspector, General of Police, Recruitment State Level Police Recruitment Board, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Lakidikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Information Commissioner, A.P. Information Commission, HACA Bhavan (Ground Floor), Opp Assembly, Adjoining All India Radio, Saifabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in general and of the action of the respondent No.3 in particular in not issuing directions to furnish the following documents namely; 1. Selection list of 30% open to all - Zonal and communal roster and also 70% local with communal roster 2. Xerox Copies of OMR answer sheets, Paper.I and Paper.II along with answer Key ABCD Paper.I and Paper.II of Selected candidates incuding question papers of ABCD. as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and violative of provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005; while issuing a consequential direction to the respondents to furnish the aforesaid documents forthwith in the interest of justice . Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.GOVERDHANACHARY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner appeared in the competitive examination held for selection of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil-Men), for the year 2002. He was not selected. Alleging that the selections were made contrary to G.O.Ms.No.48 Home (Police-C), dated 24.02.2001, the petitioner filed O.A.No.541 of 2003 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The O.A., was dismissed on 23.03.2006, and thereupon, he filed W.P.No.16283 of 2006, before this Court. The petitioner filed an application before the first respondent on 25.06.2007 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, with a request to furnish copies of various documents mentioned in the application. This included, the total selection list for Zones I to VI, list of selected and non-selected candidates, information as to the procedure adopted for selection of candidates in the year 2007 and Xerox copies of the OMR answer sheets for papers 1 and 2. After some correspondence, the first respondent furnished documents through covering letter, dated 04.10.2007. Not being satisfied with that, the petitioner filed a representation, dated 25.10.2007, with a request to furnish information, on three aspects. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no response on the representation made by him. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner is pursuing his remedy in relation to selections for the posts of Sub-Inspectors in the year 2002. Though he could canvass various grounds as well as grievances in the proceedings before the Tribunal, or this Court, he has filed the application as recently as in the year 2007. The information is not confined to the selection of the petitioner, much less to the Zone to which he belongs to. He wanted the entire information as to the selection of the posts, including the procedure followed for the year 2007. The petitioner appears to be taking advantage of the fact that no reasons need to be mentioned as to why any information is sought under the Act. Howsoever desirable it may be, different aspects, such as the rights of the third parties, the enormous pressure on the administration and lack of immediate relevance of the information sought to the cause being pursued by the applicant, need to be taken into account. Whatever was permissible at their level, the respondents have already furnished the information. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity on the part of the respondents. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09.02.2009. GJ