Chattisgarh High Court
Ravindra Kumar Pandey vs State Chief Information ... on 7 February, 2022
1
N/AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 34 OF 2019
Ravindra Kumar Pandey, S/o Shri Ramlal Pandey, aged about 44 years,
R/o.115, Harsh Heavens, Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
Versus
1. State Chief Information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State
Information Commission, Mantralaya, Indravati Bhawan, Shastri Chowk,
Raipur (C.G.)
2. Public Information Officer, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission,
Raipur (C.G.)
3. First Appellate Officer, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission,
Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.)
4. Public Service Commission, through Secretary, Shankar Nagar
Road, Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate.
For Respondents 2 to 4 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
[07/02/2022]
1. Grievance of the Petitioner seems to be the Order dated 30.7.2018
(Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.1 whereby the Second Appeal
of the Petitioner has been rejected.
2. The information sought for by the Petitioner were in respect of the
answer-sheet of the Petitioner and the final select-list which was published
by the Respondents along with the marks scored by the selected
candidates and also the preference-sheet submitted by the candidates at
the time of interview.
3. The said information have been declined to the Petitioner primarily
on the ground that the final select-list was in process and therefore it could
not be provided at that point of time.
4. Down the line, by efflux of time, now when the matter is taken up for
hearing today, it has been informed by learned Counsel for
Respondent/PSC that the entire select-list itself has been finalized and
appointment orders also have been issued. It has also been informed by
him that an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is also pending and
where there is also an interim protection given by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court vide its Order dated 23.9.2016 staying the effect and operation of the
Judgment passed by the High Court on 26.8.2016 in W.P. No.3028/2006
and W.P. No.4028/2006.
5. Nonetheless, learned Counsel for Respondent/PSC submits that if at
all the Petitioner makes a fresh application in respect of the specific
information that he requires, more particularly in respect of the Petitioner
himself and the select-list, the said application shall be considered and
decided afresh and all necessary information which can be provided to the
extent permissible under the Right to Information Act shall be made
available to the Petitioner at the earliest.
6. To the submissions made by learned Counsel for Respondent/PSC,
learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that it is only their apprehension
that if at all the Petitioner makes a fresh application, the Respondent/PSC
should not mechanically reject the same in terms of the Order passed by
the Second Appellate Authority on 30.7.2018 (Annexure P-1). He further
submits that the Petitioner is ready to move an appropriate application in
accordance with law and the same be decided on its own merits without
being in any manner getting influenced by any earlier Orders passed by
the Respondent Authorities.
7. Given the submissions made by learned Counsels appearing for the
parties, the present Writ Petition as of now is disposed of, permitting the
Petitioner to approach the Respondent No.2 by moving appropriate
application in accordance with the rules, procedures and practices for
seeking information. Upon such an application being made by Petitioner,
the Respondent No.2 shall process the claim of the Petitioner on its own
merits in accordance with law and all the information which are permissible
to be provided in terms of the Right to Information Act be made available to
the Petitioner within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of
such application.
8. Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
sharad JUDGE
