Civil Writ Petition No.9373 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9373 of 2010 Date of Decision:21.04.2011 Devender Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Narender Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner moved two applications dated 16.06.2009{Annexure P-1(Colly.)} to the State Public Information Officer, Haryana Staff Selection Commission(for brevity “the SPIO”), invoking the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) and sought the following informations:- Ist Application “Particulars of information required:- (i) Subject matter of information-Advertisement No.5/2008 Category Nos.1, 2, 3, 4. (ii) The period to which the information relates: March 2009 (iii) Description of the information required: Name, Roll Nos. and Chest Nos. of candidates who qualified the “Physical Test” under each of the four categories i.e. Cat.No.1,2,3 and 4 under Advertisement No.5/2008, separately for each category. This Civil Writ Petition No.9373 of 2010 2 information may be provided separately for each event, i.e., 800m race, 100m race, high jump, long jump strictly in the order in which the candidates actually participated in each of the above four events specifically pointing out whether a candidate qualified the high jump and long jump in first, 2nd and 3rd chance. 2 nd Application “Particulars of information required:- (i) Subject matter of information-Advertisement No.7/2008 Category No.2. (ii) The period to which the information relates: Feb. 2008 (iii) Description of the information required: (a) Criteria adopted for allocation of marks, marks separately for each head such as for aptitude, G.K. etc. (b) No. of committees constituted and name of members, each of committee and where they examined how many candidates. (c) In the examination of candidates for how many topics, candidates were examined by committee E by committed members separately.” 2. The SPIO did not supply the information and intimated in this regard to him(petitioner) vide impugned orders dated 30.06.2009 and 06.07.2009 {Annexure P-2(Colly.)}. The appeals{Annexure P-3(Colly.)} filed by him were disposed of by the first Appellate Authority(for short “the FAA”), by way of impugned order dated 11.08.2009(Annexure P-4). 3. The second appeals{Annexure P-5(Colly.)} filed by the petitioner were disposed of by the State Information Commission(for short “the SIC”) with the directions to the respondents to supply the information, after the declaration of the result of the indicated selection, by virtue of impugned orders dated 10.11.2009 and 16.12.2009{Annexure P-6 (Colly.)}. 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-2, P-4 and P-6). 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the Civil Writ Petition No.9373 of 2010 3 record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the respondents did not supply the entire information to the petitioner, so, the authorities under the Act, fell in error and illegally negatived his claim, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that, the SIC has disposed of the appeals of the petitioner, by means of impugned order(Annexure P-6) with the following directions:- “The appellant has sought information against Advt. No.5/2008, categories No.1, 2, 3 and 4 for the posts of Sub Inspector of Police & Inspector of Police (Male & Female). The information sought relates separately to each event against physical test conducted by respondents for selection to the above posts i.e. 100m, 800m race, high jump, long jump. The appellant wants to know the candidates who participated in the above four events and whether the candidates qualified the high jump and long jump in second or third chance. The respondents informed that the timing or the fact that an individual qualified the high jump, long jump in third chance does not have any bearing whatsoever on the final result. The candidates had to qualify the races in the specified time and make long jump and high jump of the minimum prescribed length and height respectively. These are physical standards which a candidate has to qualify for being eligible for interview only. The respondents further informed that the results are yet to be declared and within 20 days of declaration of result, the respondents shall furnish detailed list of those who qualified against above advertisement and category numbers for interview and the respondents shall also further provide the detailed list of selected candidates against the above advertisement and category numbers separately to the appellant.” 8. Sequelly, the following order was passed on 16.12.2009 by the SIC on his(petitioner) second appeal:- “The respondents have agreed to provide information against above mentioned queries B & C of appellant's application within 15 days Civil Writ Petition No.9373 of 2010 4 of issue of order. As regards, information against point No.:a of the above cited application of appellant, since the selection process has not been completed according to the respondents, the requisite information shall be furnished to the appellant within 7 days of declaration of result.” 9. Meaning thereby, the SIC has decided the appeals and directed the respondents to supply the information to the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, the Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission has filed the written statement. The relevant portion of which is, as under:- “The State Information Commission vide order dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P-6 Colly.) also directed to provide the information concerning Ayurvedic Medical Officer within 7 days after declaration of result. The Respondent-Commission in compliance of orders of State Information Commission dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P-6 colly.) has also sent the requisite information vide letter dated 31.12.2009(Annexure R-3/2). Therefore, the State Information Commission has rightly directed the Respondent- Commission to supply the aforesaid available information within the stipulated time after the declaration of final result for the aforesaid post and in compliance of the orders of the State Information Commission, the petitioner has been informed vide letter dated 01.12.2009(Annexure R-3/1) and also supplied the information vide letter dated 31.12.2009(Annexure R-3/2) to the petitioner and as such the petitioner has no valid cause of action in filing the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed having no force and merit therein.” 10. Learned State Counsel has also placed on record the copies of informations supplied to the petitioner, vide Memo No.HSSC/RTI-366/2009/843 dated 22.03.2011. The factum of the receipt of informations has been duly acknowledged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted the factum of receipt of information vide letter dated 22.03.2011, but still, his argument that the complete record of chest number or event-wise information, has not been Civil Writ Petition No.9373 of 2010 5 supplied to the petitioner, is again misconceived, in view of the explanation put- forth by the respondents in their written statement, wherein it was explained(in para 4) that in the physical test, the candidates were required to undergo different events such as 800 metres race, 100 metres race, high jump, long jump, measurement of chest and height etc. in continuity and as such, the identification of the candidates was required to be ensured by providing them temporary chest numbers, after completion of each event. The result of physical test was prepared by the committee on the result sheet. Three chances were given to each candidate. Therefore, after completion of events, it was not possible to preserve the event- wise data, as asked by the petitioner. The remaining information has already been supplied to him. 12. ` In this manner, once the entire available informations have already been supplied in pursuance of the impugned order(Annexures P-6), in that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith and the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the entire information has not been supplied to him. He(petitioner) appears to be interested in continuing the litigation celebrately. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to point out any valid ground for interference in the impugned orders, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner 'stricto sensu' deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed with costs, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. April 21, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE