Information secured under the RTI Act cannot be the basis for the conclusion: Supreme Court of India

The Appellant­State of Odisha & others are before this High Court has set aside the orders passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench in O.A between the parties has the genesis in the selection process Through the resolution dated 12.03.1996 the procedure for recruitment was formulated and the selection process was selected for appointment was published on 31.01.1997. The and it had depicted that the respondent had secured 114.80 marks. The respondent was accordingly appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Singiri in the Pay Scale of Rs.1080­30­ EB­30­1800. The respondent no.1 had joined duty on When this was the position a group of aggrieved unsuccessful candidates approached the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2792(C) 1999 and selection process. The SAT having considered the same been completed one of the applicants Ms. Prem Lata Panda filed a Contempt Petition No.382(C) 2001 before the SAT alleging non­compliance of the order dated 24.01.2001. The select list be prepared within four months. The appellants herein in compliance thereto prepared a fresh selection list withdrawing the appointments and in that light sought for list the last of the candidate selected in the general category of the respondent was 109.86 due to which the appellants on 30.11.2006. The respondent claiming to be aggrieved by such termination filed an application before the SAT in O.A No.2699(C) 2006. Certain other candidates who were terminated from service either due to the criteria of the the termination. The SAT having taken note of the rival terminated from service because they filed forged vigilance case. In that view it was observed that if the decision in the vigilance case goes in their favour they would be at the respondent was not due to that reason but due to the Petition in M.P.No.729(C) 2006 before the SAT which was disposed of by the order dated 21.10.2014. Though the said originally shown as 114.80 marks did not see reason to Court in the abovestated writ petition. The High Court on 114.80 marks more particularly relying on the details of the minutes dated 31.01.1997 which was obtained by the for short ‘RTI Act’) wherein the name of the respondent appeared at Serial No.301 as she had been awarded 114.80 marks. The learned Division Bench of the High Court accordingly directed the appellants herein to treat the and communicate a reasoned order to the respondent within three months. The review filed against the said order was appearing for the appellants Mr. Ashok Panigrahi learned litigation between the parties including the challenge to the original selection list by a group of unsuccessful candidates preparation of re­selected list after considering the matter afresh is not in serious dispute. Though the genesis for the published was the allegation made by the unsuccessful candidates in O.A. No.2792(C) 1999 and analogous petitions list has been re­arranged based on the marks obtained is documents for obtaining appointment. In fact this aspect is No.729(C) 2006. In the said order the reason to justify the termination of respondent is taken note which is that the respondent had obtained 109.88 marks and was accordingly placed at the appropriate spot in the re­select list. The said Against the above backdrop it is noticed that the only of the information secured under RTI Act relied upon by the respondent wherein the minutes dated 31.01.1997 indicated the marks obtained by the respondent as 114.80 marks and the conclusion reached by the High Court since according to the RTI Act and such information would justify that the respondent having obtained 114.80 marks is entitled to be 12. The learned counsel for the appellants would on the on the list which was prepared on 31.01.1997 the details of orders passed therein subsequent thereto a re­selection list was prepared. In the said process the marks were correctly competitive test the total would add up to 109.86 and not In the light of the above the only question for In the re­select list the name of the respondent is shown at Serial No.474 having obtained 109.86 marks. The marks awarded by the three Selection Committee members in the Viva­voce is shown as 16 20.20 and 7 the total of which to be divided by 3 will work out to the average of 14.40 marks in 14. Hence all these aspects will reveal that though it had aside by the SAT accepting the allegations of the applicants therein that the list had not been appropriately prepared be sustained. The orders dated 20.03.2018 and 06.12.2018 Pending applications if any shall stand disposed of. Page 1

Summary: The Appellant has approached the Supreme Court in these appeals by assailing the orders passed by the High Court of Orissa in [WP(C) No.22713/2014]. Where they concluded and produced an order concerning the right to informant act. Mr Sibo Sankar Mishra represented the appellants and Mr   Ashok   Panigrahi represented the respondent in the case. In the Supreme Court of India, this judgement was given by Honorable Mr Justice A.S. Bopanna, J. on the 27th of September 2021 in the case of State of Odisha &amp; Ors. Versus Arati Mohapatra, [Civil Appeal Nos. 5963­5964 OF 2021] arising out of SLP (civil) [Nos.9302­9303/2019].  The following are the brief facts of the case, In the year 1996, there was a recruitment process of primary school teachers that was initiated in government schools in the state of Odisha. Whereby 379 candidates were selected for an appointment, the respondent has secured 114.80 marks in the test and was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Singiri, with the PayScale of Rs.1080­ and the respondent joined the duty on the 30th of July 1997. However, the candidates who were rejected for the job approached the State Administrative Tribunal alleging foul play in the selection process. The SAT produced an order on the 24th of January 2001 directing the authorities to make a fresh list of candidates for the Job there was a delay in complying with the order and the Court directed to produce the fresh document within four months. The appellant team was so pursuant they formed a committee on the 8th of September 2006 to prepare a fresh list by re-electing the candidates. The Counsel for the appellant held that while re-electing the last of the candidate selected in the general category has secured 111.53 marks, whereas near the respondent’s name it was written secured 109.86 marks which is contrasting her original marks and she was terminated from the service in 2006. The others who were terminated due to marks difference or forgery of the documents approached the SAT, where the SAT disposed of the same by stating that since the applicants have filed forged certificates /documents and a vigilance case is pending. The SAT when they considered the fact that the marks shown in the re-selection list against the name of the respondent contrasting her original marks did not feel the need to interfere in the termination order. The respondent finally approached the High court in a writ petition. The High Court considered the fact that her original marks differed from the marks mentioned in the re-selection list, the division bench directed the appellants to treat the respondent concerning her original marks. Also, to communicate a reasoned order to the respondent in 3 months as to why she was terminated which was obtained by the respondent under the Right to Information Act The Counsel representing the respondent held that it is not disputed that the respondent was not one of the candidates who was accused of forgery of documents for obtaining the appointment. In justification of the termination of the respondent was that the marks were lesser than the last selected candidate in the general category. the counsel held that the information was reached to her from the official filed under the RIT act and therefore the respondent is entitled to be selected which even the High Court has directed. The counsel for the appellant contended the order because the High court placed reliance on the first list of candidates than the re-selection list. The counsel for the appellant held that marks obtained by the respondent in the viva voce were 14.40, matriculation of 44.42 marks and 51.04 marks in the competitive test which would add up to 109.86 and not 114.80 marks hence the order given by the High court is not justified. The Honourable Supreme Court held that “The High Court concluded asking the appellants to consider the original marks merely because it was secured under the Right to information act and held that the decision made by the High Court was not justified and had fallen into error, therefore, the order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. The orders dated 20.03.2018 and  06.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Orissa in WP(C) No.22713/2014 and ReviewPetition No.230/2018 are set aside. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.” Click here to read the judgment