• •i!i ••-s' 'Sise^ %,sT BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Cl N0 ^^^) / 2011 PETITIONER .\^l^-;-l\l2~ .-»-^i^r ^cWa<i'B^^,.yo-i- dawd..-- RESPONDENTS : 1) 2) 3) Sheetal Kumar Pawar, S/o Shri S.R. Pawar, aged about 30 years, R/o Qtr.No.lO-A, StreetNo.Sl/A, Sector-10, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS The Chief Information Commissioner, Central Inforination Commission, Club Building, Old J.N.U. Complex, New Delhi. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Opp. GM/ NCR Office Building, Subedarganj, Allahabad (U.P.) Member Secretary, Public Information Officer, Railway Recruitment Board, Opp. GM/ NCR Office Building, Subedarganj, Allahabad (U.P.) •^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA "^Si /',f^"' J1r^l_1 ^f^^- iFST' /'*^,C"' /~U LJ A ""'l e'^w> A s"3 Li . 3 l. i -•» ^ F^ ^ 1~S i'' Vi~'r 'l i 'f'~ ? ^ 's^ !c~s^. ! S ! X f —;£& 5^>! ?"^ ' "•; U U/~^ s~i ^ i ~^ ii'k*-;; ; •UI-n/l^i\ S ^B/S l-rf'i i: SJ~1; J ^ S\^'^3f~\i\'. ' - LJ ; i—r"^.'ku'' •^ i\ WRIT PETiTION i0 N0. 2239 OF 2011 Vsrsus • cnier in rma7'on commissiORe ithers AA/rit Petftion unde' Art'cie 226 ofthe Constitution of india'i SinQie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Sstish K. Aanlhotrl, J. Present:- Shrl P.R.Patankar, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER iORAU . (Psssed on this 03r° dav of Mav, 2011) BV this pet'tion, the petitioner seete a direction to the respondent authorities to suppiy copy of the OMR answer sheet to t? petitioner, in accordance w'th ;aw, under the provisions of ti- Right to !nfo''mat!on Act, 2005 (forshort "the Act. 2005"). Learned counsel aDpearing for the petitioner submits that S I 'ut I pursuant to the Employment Notice No.2^2008, the petitioner appued for seiectlon and sppointment on the post os Section Enaineer CTeiecom^. Hs DarticiDated 'n the written esamination. W?s\jinn h^^" i !n%' ir:rhp;£%f^ii hp jTfpri^ sri ?::i?^niir;snnr! hpfrir?d th?s ;'^¥i'i:'s-,^ »-.''^;CS; ' iLn? •-2U;—'4-^e?iS^5i'i^ii • i IS? f i ['Ci..!w!'i^ EB':{ Gi?./i^'•-'T^/% i.1 ^E! I h^^i^i-w i..::S resDondent Railwav suthorities under the provisions of ths Aot, 2005. snd reauested them *o suDoiy a couv of'the iist of the select candidates as wel' as marks obtained by the petitioner. 3 ~he Raiiwsv authQnties Drovided the reau'site information So the petit'oner and further informed to ths petitioner thst his answer <sh°et couid not be evaluated, as the get'tioner hss not bubbied the ro" number In the answer sheet. SubsequentSy, the petjtioner ^ouBstCid th@ Rsllwsv 3uthorttiss to Drovlcis 3 coov of OiyR 1 ! .-f."@s'^ ^k;>-^ \ 1 I sf^^i s !», %»° '^^-.^L,^ answer sheet, which was denied on the ground that the same is highiv confidential docLiment. ^S^inn ^r^nripvpd hv fhff' <sslri ^ft^n tha n^tltinn^r snnrn^r^h^fi f ^:^^3 r^-.q ^^l^'^ ^'^/ k?' 1tatf^ ^ ^ ^ i E ^ 'f:3C3 i^ 1^.^''^3\^;'l 1 » L^ 31^ ?ta.? ^•L Ul i^j t ^?i d.sT/^S ^^.^^ i^^.; ^ 'U' ^i,^- - - f .. - —„.--.. -.-..-.... .^ ^. -_ ^. ^.-... ...... .^..^ ^_ - _ .„. the, f'rst appel'ate airthorlty as weii ss the Chief information Commlssioner and when proper informstion was not obtained by the Detit'oner, hs aDgroached this Court bv filina a writ Detition being W.P.(C) No.6558'2010, which was disposed of by this Court v'de orde1' dated 18.11.2010, with a direction to the resoondent authorlt'es to examlne the case of the Detitioner snd pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. Thsreafter, the Dctitioner sent the certifled CODV of the order to the resDondent a,jthorities and requested to do the needfui, as per the direction of this Court. On receiDt ofthe certified cooy ofthe order, the resoondent No.1 decided the appeal os the petitioner wifhout affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the order hss been passed behind the bsck of the petitioner. On perusai of the p'eadings and the documents appended theretd, it.appears that tne Centrai information Commission, after appreciatlng the facts and cireumstances of the case, rejectee the aDQilcat'on of the Detitioner. holdina that the issue with reaard to suoolv of CODV of the oriainaS OMR answer sheet was considered bv ths ful! Bench of ths Central information Commission, New DeJhi, and in the i'ght of the observatlon and no merit in the arder Dassed bv the fut! Bench, there ^r'olic^tinn Psnd tha ^?3mp VA^^S ^ccQrdinolv rol?£ct^ri ^i.^''^li^/r^^\\^f s ^ ^^4 ^^ s'^ ^S'C^? i ^'*^ Vt?a^ C(I^"T^'-L^^ ^li 3^ t 'V .J ^j ;1^-4wr/-^k^ * ^•fwy ;-uas-aSSs^ ,.^-:v4'%, ;S^ s •Al'%> ' have perused the decision dated 23.04.2007, passed by the fuli Bench of the Central Information Commission, the fuil Bench n! considered a" the aspects OT the matter and came to the conclusion, holdina that 'a cltizen cannot seek disciosure of eva'uated answer sheet under the Act, 2005. Even otherwise, this is not the case of the petitioner tlat the defect point out by the se'ection Board was contrary to the facts. The impugned order dated 12.11.2010 (Annexure P-11) was "asssd on the basis of a decision of the ful! Bench of the Centrai !nformatlon Commission in complaint ?\io.CiCAA/3/C2006/00223. Ths ostltionsr hss pot oo!nt6d out whath@r 'ths ordsr dst^d 23.04.2007 passed in comp'aint No.C!C/WB/C2006/00223 (Annexure P-12) has atiain finsiity or thereagsinst, there was any chs!!enae to the said order before anv suoerior Courts. i do "ot f'nd anv irreauiaritv or iileaaiity in the order. Thus, the impuaned o'der daied 12.11.2010 (Annexure P-11), passed by the Comn'issioner, is just and proper and does "ot warrant any interference by this Court. Accordinalv, the writ petifion, be'ng bereft of meriL is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. : g^ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge "sho^