Alok Kumar Chandra vs Uoi And Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 4091 Del

$~76
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 6083/2011

      ALOK KUMAR CHANDRA                        ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Priyank Sharma & Mr. Satyender
                           Chahar, Advocates.

                                 Versus

      UOI AND ANR                                        ..... Respondents
                          Through:     Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC with
                                       Mr. Akshay Chandra, Adv. for UOI.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

                                 ORDER

% 23.08.2011

1. The petitioner had applied in pursuance to the advertisement in the

Employment News pertaining to vacancies in Employees Provident Fund

Organization (EPFO) Maharashtra Division and had appeared in the

examination held for the said purposes on 6th September, 2009. The result

of the examination was declared on 27th December, 2009 and the petitioner

was not successful therein. The petitioner on 31 st December, 2009 itself

claims to have applied under the RTI Act, 2005 with respect to the said

result. Being not satisfied with the order of the various authorities under the

RTI Act, the petitioner ultimately approached the Central Information

Commission (CIC) claiming the relief of inspection of the OMR answer sheets of the petitioner as well as of the selected candidates.

2. It has been the stand of the respondent no.1 EPFO that the answer

sheets are not available with it and the examination was out sourced to the

respondent no.2 Institute of Banking Personnel Selection and the answer

sheets were retained by them. It appears that the CIC enquired from the

respondent no.2 and was informed that the answer sheets have been weeded

out as per the Rules.

3. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the policy of

weeding out and impugning the entire process of selection pursuant to the

advertisement and examination aforesaid and seeking further direction to the

respondents to conduct the examination all over again.

4. The persons who have been selected in the examination have not been

impleaded as respondents. The petitioner is inter alia seeking quashing of

their selection; they are necessary parties. The petition in their absence is

not maintainable.

5. Even otherwise the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents

were required to preserve the OMR answer sheets of the examination since

the RTI query with respect to the result of the examination was made within

three days of the declaration of the result.

6. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to which provision of law and/or principle of law required the document/OMR

answer sheets to be so preserved. I have in judgment dated 11 th August,

2011 in W.P.(C) No.5779/2011 titled Soumik Mitra Vs. UOI held that the

authorities under the RTI Act have no power to interfere with the rules

regarding weeding out/destruction of documents and the destruction of the

documents in accordance with the rules cannot constitute destruction to

invite the penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.

7. It may also be noticed that prior to the recent judgment of the Apex

Court in Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay

MANU/SC/0932/2011 the principle was of the answer sheets being not

open for inspection. The petitioner has not even filed before this Court the

rules of the examination, the result whereof is challenged.

7. The petition is half baked and half hearted and is dismissed. No order

as to costs.

CM No.12285/2011 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AUGUST 23, 2011 bs..