Delhi High Court
Neeraj Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 July, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
$~74.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 27th July, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 5289/2011
NEERAJ MEHTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raman Kapur, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Preeti Dalal, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
: RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. The petitioner claims to have, in pursuance to the advertisement
issued by the Government of India (Cabinet Secretariat), applied for the post
of Deputy Field Officer in Government of India Organization and claims to
have appeared in the examination held on 15th October, 2000 for the said
purpose. It is the case of the petitioner that the result of the said examination
was not declared and upon his making enquiry under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), the PIO, the First Appellate Authority as
well as the Central Information Commission (CIC) have held that since the
organization had been exempted under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, the
information could not be allowed. Aggrieved therefrom, the present petition
has been filed.
2. The counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice has
contended that the application under the RTI Act was highly belated having
been made after nearly 10 years of the examination; that as per the terms of
the advertisement in pursuance to which the petitioner had applied, "only
selected candidates" were to be "informed of their selection in due course
after selection process" and no correspondence on the subject was
entertainable. Attention is also invited to the Second Schedule to the RTI
Act where the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) of the Cabinet
Secretariat has been included as exempted from the provisions of the RTI
Act.
3. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner has urged that unless
transparency is maintained, possibility of malpractices in the selection
process cannot be ruled out. It is thus contended that the respondents were
obliged to declare the comparative marks secured by each and every
candidate who had appeared in the written test and without the same being
declared, the petitioner presumes that bias in selection has been practiced.
Qua the objection as to delay, it is contended that the RTI Act provides for
enquiry to be made within 20 years. It is also contended that the
advertisement no where stated that the appointments were for Research and
Analysis Wing of the Cabinet Secretariat.
4. The counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner in the
petition has admitted that the appointment was for RAW.
5. I am of the view that once the advertisement in pursuance to which
the petitioner had applied, itself stated that only selected candidates would
be informed of their selection and no correspondence will be entertained and
the petitioner had appeared and participated in the selection process on the
said terms, the petitioner is not entitled to now challenge the same. A catena
of judgments in this regard was recently noticed in Vipul Bhole Vs. School
of Planning and Architecture 173 (2010) DLT 349. The principle laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in Rohit Kumar Vs. Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board MANU/DE/2075/2010 qua re-
examination/re-evaluation that in the absence of a rule or regulation, the
same cannot be permitted, would also squarely apply to such a clause also.
Moreover, it is not controverted by the petitioner that the appointments were
for RAW, though undoubtedly the advertisement inviting applications did
not state so but the PIO as well as the First Appellate Authority and CIC
have consistently held so and the said part has not been controverted by the
petitioner. It is further the admitted position that to maintain secrecy and
confidentiality, the admit cards earlier issued to the applicants were also
taken back at the time of interview. I may also notice that the Division
Bench of this Court recently in Esab India Ltd. Vs. Special Director of
Enforcement MANU/DE/1387/2011 has upheld the validity of Section 24
and Second Schedule of the RTI Act.
6. Once the Organization from which the reply/information was sought
is exempted, no error can be found in the orders impugned.
7. The petition is dismissed
No orders as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J
JULY 27, 2011
anb
