THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 21272 of 2008 Order: The petitioner is a Professor in Civil Engineering Department in Andhra University. He states that he made an application to the 1st respondent, namely the Registrar, Andhra University, on 22.01.2008, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, requesting him to furnish the following information: i) Minutes of the meeting of the “Selection Committee” for filling up the post of Readers in Civil Engineering, Andhra University as per Advertisement No. 1/86, dated 09.05.1986 and any other recorded information of the Selection Committee as per the procedures of Andhra University. ii) Minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council of Andhra Pradesh held on 31.01.1989, regarding the information of posting orders and positions of Reader posts in Civil Engineering Department of Andhra Pradesh. The said request, vide orders dated 01.02.2008, was rejected by the 1st respondent, on the ground that the information sought is confidential and therefore cannot be furnished. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner states that he preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent, namely the Vice-Chancellor and the Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, on 18.02.2008. While the appeal is pending before the 2nd respondent, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the 3rd respondent, namely the State Information Commissioner. Before the 3rd respondent could act upon the second appeal of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 28.03.2008, rejected the appeal of the petitioner stating that the information desired by you is confidential and cannot be furnished. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent, vide orders dated 06.06.2008, impugned in the writ petition, closed the second appeal, stating as follows: The Commission having examined the material papers filed by the appellant along with his appeal ordered notices to both parties to appear before this Commission on 16.05.2008, on which date both parties were called absent. However, in the light of the submissions made by the appellant through Lr. Dt. 13.05.2008 which was faxed to this office on the same day to the effect that the University was kind enough to allow him to go through the Selection Committee Minutes, 1989 and that he had represented to the University to declare his seniority, based on the said Committee Minutes and that the University Executive Council had taken up the matter in its meeting held on 21.04.2008, this Commission is of the view that the request of the appellant was complied with and in that view of the matter, the appeal is closed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the University has merely shown the petitioner the documents desired by him, but refused to furnish the copies of the same, and since the said documents desired by the petitioner, are very much required for ascertaining his seniority, based on which, he can claim promotion for advancement of his career, he submitted that the 3rd respondent committed an error in closing the second appeal stating that since the information desired by him has been shown to him by the University, his request stood complied with. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. The 1st and 2nd respondents-Andhra University, filed counter. The learned Standing Counsel representing them submitted that the information desired by the petitioner is confidential, and as such, copies thereof were not furnished by the 1st and 2nd respondents. He submitted that since the information sought for by the petitioner was already shown to him, as admitted to by him in the letter, the 3rd respondent felt that the request of the petitioner having been complied with, closed the second appeal filed by the petitioner, without passing any orders thereon, vide the order impugned in the writ petition, and no interference is called for therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Under Section 4(1) of the Act, every public authority is under an obligation to maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under the Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated, and shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of the Act, the information related to the matters enumerated thereunder. While Section 8 of the Act, exempts the public authority from disclosing the information as to the matters enumerated therein, in the interest of the security of the State. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner is seeking information/copies of the Minutes of the Selection Committee and the Executive Council, relating to filling up and selection of the posts of Readers in the Civil Engineering Department of the University. According to the petitioner, the information sought for by him, would decide the seniority, based on which, he can claim promotion/career advancement. The information, sought for by the petitioner, is not such an information, which would affect the interest of the security of the State, thereby falling within exemptions provided in Section 8 of the Act, which exempt the public authority from disclosing the information as to the matters enumerated therein. Since the information sought by the petitioner relates to his service, career advancement and promotion, and the authorities of the University, having shown the information desired by the petitioner, and the confidentiality of the said documents having been lost, I fail to understand how the they can refuse to furnish the same to the petitioner, surprisingly on the ground that they are confidential, and as such, cannot be disclosed. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that all the authorities, have committed an error in refusing to furnish the copies of the documents sought for by the petitioner in his application dated 22.01.2008. Hence, the orders passed by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents are set aside, and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to furnish the copies of the documents sought for by the petitioner in his application dated 22.01.2008. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 13th November, 2008 KSR