Kerala High Court
Dr. Hari C.V vs Indian Institute Of Information ... on 10 February, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
W.A. No.2078 of 2024
2025:KER:10381
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 21ST MAGHA, 1946
WA NO. 2078 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.11.2024 IN WP(C) NO.26741 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/APPLICANT/PETITIONER:
DR. HARI C.V.,AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. C.V. GOVINDAN, MAALEYAM NEAR JEEVODAYA CONVENT,
VALLIPPANPADI U.C. COLLEGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683102
BY ADVS.
SHYAM KRISHNAN
GENS GEORGE ELAVINAMANNIL
N.B.SUNILNATH
S.K.HARISH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR KAROOR, VALAVOOR
P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686635
2 ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 7TH FLOOR, CHANDERLOK BUILDING,
JANPATH NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
3 SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 122-C, SHASTRI
BHAWAN, NEW DELHI -110001
2
W.A. No.2078 of 2024
2025:KER:10381
4 DR. M.RADHAKRISHNAN
(AGE AND NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN), NOW WORKING AS
REGISTRAR , INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
KOTTAYAM KAROOR, VALAVOOR P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM, 686635---
IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R4 AS PER THE ORDER DTD 7.8.24 IN IA
1/24 IN WPC, PIN - 686635
5 DR. A ANANTH
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, KOTTAYAM KAROOR, VALAVOOR P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM,
686635--- IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R5 AS PER THE ORDER DTD 7.8.24
IN IA 1/24 IN WPC, PIN - 686635
6 DR. VENKATESH S
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, KOTTAYAM KAROOR, VALAVOOR P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM ,
686635--- IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R6 PER THE ORDER DTD 7.8.24 IN
IA 1/24 IN WPC, PIN - 686635
7 DR. MINU A PILLAI
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, KOTTAYAM KAROOR, VALAVOOR P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM ,
686635--- IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R7 AS PER THE ORDER DTD 7.8.24
IN IA 1/24 IN WPC, PIN - 686635
8 DR. DELLA THOMAS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, KOTTAYAM KAROOR, VALAVOOR P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM,
686635--- IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R8 AS PER THE ORDER DTD 7.8.24
IN IA 1/24 IN WPC, PIN - 686635
9 DR. LIDIYA LILLY THAMPI
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, KOTTAYAM KAROOR, VALAVOOR P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM ,
686635--- IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R9 AS PER THE ORDER DTD 7.8.24
IN IA 1/24 IN WPC, PIN - 686635
10 DR. DEBARATI GANGULY
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, KOTTAYAM KAROOR, VALAVOOR P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM,
686635---
3
W.A. No.2078 of 2024
2025:KER:10381
IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R10 AS PER THE ORDER DTD 7.8.24 IN IA
1/24 IN WPC, PIN - 686635
11 DR. LAKSHMI N.S
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, KOTTAYAM KAROOR, VALAVOOR P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM,
686635--- IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R11 AS PER THE ORDER DTD
7.8.24 IN IA 1/24 IN WPC, PIN - 686635
12 DR. MASIGALLA GOPAL
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, KOTTAYAM KAROOR, VALAVOOR P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM,
686635--- IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R12 AS PER THE ORDER DTD
7.8.24 IN IA 1/24 IN WPC, PIN - 686635
13 DR. RAVI AJMEERA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, KOTTAYAM KAROOR, VALAVOOR P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM ,
686635--- IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R13 AS PER THE ORDER DTD
7.8.24 IN IA 1/24 IN WPC, PIN - 686635
14 DR.EMY MARIAM GEORGE
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, KOTTAYAM KAROOR, VALAVOOR P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM,
686635--- IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R14 AS PER THE ORDER DTD
7.8.24 IN IA 1/24 IN WPC, PIN - 686635
15 DR. DEEPAK JOSE
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, KOTTAYAM KAROOR, VALAVOOR P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM,
686635--- IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R15 AS PER THE ORDER DTD
7.8.24 IN IA 1/24 IN WPC, PIN - 686635
16 VINEETH PALLIYEMBIL
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, KOTTAYAM KAROOR, VALAVOOR P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM ,
686635--- IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R16 AS PER THE ORDER DTD
7.8.24 IN IA 1/24 IN WPC, PIN - 686635
BY ADVS.
Sajith Kumar V.
ABI BENNY AREECKAL
BEA MARY BENNY(K/000129/2021)
4
W.A. No.2078 of 2024
2025:KER:10381
BENNY GERVACIS (SR.)(K/524/1989)
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV. SUMATHI DANDAPANI, SR. COUNSEL FOR IIIT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.01.2025, THE COURT
ON 10.02.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
5
W.A. No.2078 of 2024
2025:KER:10381
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.26741
of 2024, being aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2024 passed
in I.A. No.2 of 2024 filed in the writ petition, whereby the learned
Single Judge closed the interlocutory application filed by the
appellant seeking a direction against the 1st respondent Indian
Institute of Information Technology, Kottayam to provide and
produce certain informations/documents, observing that if the
documents sought for by the petitioner are found required at the
time of hearing, the Court can call for them.
2. The appellant, who participated in the selection process
for the post of Assistant Professor Grade-I and Assistant Professor
Grade-II in the 1st respondent Institute, filed the writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following
reliefs:
2025:KER:10381
"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction, calling for the records leading to: Ext P1 and
Exts.P4 to P7 and Exts.P8 to P11, to the extent that they
apply to the selection of Assistant Professor Grade II,
Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering,
IIIT, Kottayam;
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or
direction, quashing Ext.P1 and Exts.P4 to P7 and Exts.P8 to
P11, to the extent that they apply to the selection of
Assistant Professor Grade II, Department of Electronics and
Communication Engineering, IIIT, Kottayam;
(iii) Declare that the selection and appointment of the
candidates as per Ext.P7 is illegal and quash their
appointments as illegal;
(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and
3 to enquire into the legality of the recruitment process for
Assistant Professor Grade I & Assistant Professor Grade II,
Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering,
IIIT, Kottayam and take appropriate penal action against the
1st respondent;"
3. According to the appellant the entire selection process has
been a sham for appointing the former ad hoc employees of the
1st respondent to the post of Assistant Professor Grade II. In the
2025:KER:10381
writ petition, the appellant filed I.A. No.2 of 2024 to direct the 1 st
respondent to provide and produce the following information-
documents.
"(a) Separate mark-sheets of the written examination,
power point presentation and interview of all the 25
candidates (shortlisted after the written test) for the afore
mentioned post;
(b) Rank List for the afore mentioned post;
(c) Educational qualifications and working experience of
respondents 5 to 16, the selected candidates;
(d) Number of Ad Hoc faculty members selected to the post
of Assistant Professor Grade II;
(e) Separate marks scored by the petitioner in the written
examination, power point presentation and interview;
(f) True copy of the petitioner's answer-sheet with marks
awarded for each question;
(g) All the details of the members of the Interview Board,
with name, designation and address;
(h) Separate marks awarded to the petitioner by each
member of the Interview Board;
(i) The reason for not calling the petitioner for the interview
for Assistant Professor Grade I, even after he had cleared
the common written test;
(j) The Minutes and Video-Recording of the written
2025:KER:10381
examination, power point presentation & Interview of the
candidates held on 07.11.2023 and 08.11.2023 and
provisionally selected as per Ext. P6 for the afore mentioned
post, so as to ascertain as to who among the members of
the Interview Board was was present and whether the
Registrar of the IIIT, Kottayam, was also present during the
written exam, power point presentation & interview;
(k) True copy of the Appointment Orders Issued by the 1
respondent IIIT, Kottayam, either by E-mail or by Hand or
by Post, to respondents 5 to 16, the selected candidates."
4. The additional 4th respondent Registrar of the 1st
respondent Institute filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the
application. After hearing both sides, the learned single judge
passed the following order in the interlocutory application:
"This interlocutory application is filed by the writ petitioner
for a direction to the 1st respondent to produce certain
information/documents in their possession. In the affidavit
filed in support of the I.A., it is stated that when the
petitioner sought for the aforesaid information/documents
under the Right to Information Act, the 1st respondent
refused to supply the same. If an information sought for is
declined by the Information Officer under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 it is for the petitioner to seek remedy
under the said Act. If the documents sought for by the
2025:KER:10381
petitioner are found required at the time of hearing, this
Court can call for the documents. Therefore, no orders are
necessary in this Interlocutory Application."
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned senior counsel for respondents 1 and 4, the learned senior
Counsel appearing for the party respondents/appointees, the
learned Central Government counsel for the 2nd respondent and
the learned counsel for the party respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
the appellant had already approached the 1st respondent, under
the Right to Information Act, for the necessary documents and
information sought in the interlocutory application filed in the writ
petition. Since the appellant was not provided the documents and
information, he had to file the interlocutory application, so as to
facilitate him to take proper contentions in the writ petition. But
the learned Single Judge closed the interlocutory application
stating that the documents could be called for in a later stage if
found necessary. No purpose will be served by passing such an
order. When a query was made by this Court regarding the non-
2025:KER:10381
mentioning of the necessity of each information and document
separately in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the
learned counsel vehemently submitted that the reason for seeking
those documents and information is self-evident and the Court is
not expected to find a third party case, especially when the
respondents did not raise such a contention in the counter affidavit
as well during hearing before the learned Single Judge. In support
of his said arguments, the learned counsel relied on the judgment
of the Apex Court in Allahabad University v. Geetanjali Tiwari
(Pandey) and others [2024 SCC Online SC 3776].
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1
and 4 argued that the appellant had admittedly filed a petition
under the provisions of the Right to Information Act seeking the
information and documents mentioned as (a) to (i) in I.A. No.2 of
2024. If the documents or information were not provided to him
under the Right to Information Act, his remedy is under the said
Act itself and not in the writ petition. By relying on the pleadings
in paragraphs 4 to 17 of the counter affidavit, the learned Senior
2025:KER:10381
Counsel vehemently argued that the details of the information
provided and not provided to the appellant are specifically stated
in the counter affidavit. Hence no further consideration is
necessary in those aspects at this early stage of the writ petition.
Moreover, only if the interim order passed by the learned Single
Judge is one affecting or touching upon substantial rights or
liabilities of the appellant, he is entitled to file an appeal under
Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. In support of the
said argument, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment
of this Court in Union Territory of Lakshadweep v. Salmikoya.
K [2025 (1) KLT 65]. The learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that the appeal has to be dismissed with exemplary
costs since it is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
8. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the party
respondents/appointees would submit that the interlocutory
application filed by the appellant is not dismissed by the learned
Single Judge, but closed for the time being with an observation
that the documents can be called for if warranted at a later stage
2025:KER:10381
and hence not appealable. The learned Central Government
counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned counsel appearing
for respondents 7, 9,11, and 15 supported the arguments of the
learned senior counsels.
9. The appellant participated in the selection process for the
post of Assistant Professor Grade-I as well as Assistant Professor
Grade-II in the 1st respondent Institute notified by virtue of Ext.P1
notification dated 31.01.2023. According to him, though he
cleared the common written examination for both posts, he was
called for a presentation and interview only for the post of
Assistant Professor Grade-II. On finalisation of the selection
process, as per Ext.P7 information note dated 15.11.2023, twelve
candidates were shortlisted for the post of Assistant Professor
Grade-II, wherein the appellant was not included. No candidates
were selected for the post of Assistant Professor Grade-I.
Thereafter, the appellant submitted separate applications under
the Right to Information Act to the 1st respondent requesting
various information relating to the selection process. When no
2025:KER:10381
information was received on time, he filed an online appeal also
under the Right to Information Act. According to the appellant,
though Exts.P8 to P11, replies dated 07.02.2024. 09.02.2024,
15.03.2024 and 17.04.2024 were given by the 1st respondent, no
information sought was furnished to him. It is thereafter the
appellant challenged the selection process itself by filing the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising
various grounds. After the appearance of the respondents, he filed
I.A. No. 2 of 2024 as said above, which ultimately resulted in the
filing of the above appeal.
10. The perusal of the information sought as well as the
document requested to be produced by the 1st respondent as per
I.A. No.2 of 2024 filed by the appellant would make it clear that
most of them is either personal information or in respect of a
selection process conducted by the 1st respondent which is not
finalized by appointing any particular candidate or candidates. The
4th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit pertaining to each
information or document requested in I.A. No.2 of
2025:KER:10381
2024. Paragraphs 4 to 17 of the said counter affidavit reads thus:
"4. As evidenced by Exhibit P8, the reply dated 07.02.2024
given by the PIO to petitioner's RTI request dated
20.11.2023, produced in the Writ Petition, the petitioner had
already made a request for obtaining information with
respect to 5 queries, of which query nos. (1) and (2) are
marked as items (a) and (b) in the above I.A. It could be
seen from Exhibit P8 that the first request of 'providing
separate marks scored in written examination and interview
by all 25 candidates' was denied as per Section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act, 2005. The same Exhibit P8 also indicated that
his request for 'providing rank list' was answered under
query no. 2, stating that "the list of provisionally selected
candidates were already uploaded on the institute website,
for the information of all" and this list has been produced
and marked by the petitioner in the writ petition as Exhibit
P6, the Information Note dated 07.11.2023 and Exhibit P7,
the Information Note dated 15.11.2023.
5. With respect to item (c), the requirement is for providing
'educational qualifications and working experience of
respondent nos. 5 to 16, the selected candidates', which was
raised as query no.1 in the petitioner's RTI request dated
20.11.2023. As evidenced from Exhibit P9, the reply dated
09.02.2024, PIO answered this query by stating that 'the
personal information cannot be shared as per Section 8
2025:KER:10381
(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005'.
6. The 4th item, mentioned as (d), concerns the 'Number of
Ad Hoc faculty members selected for the post of Assistant
Professor Grade II'. Referring to Exhibit P10, the reply dated
15.03.2024 given by the PIO to petitioner's RTI request
dated 18.02.2024, it can be seen that query no. 8 of
petitioner's RTI request sought: 'Out of 12 candidates
selected as Assistant Professor Grade II to the Department
of ECE (as per Information Note on the Institute's website
dated 15th November, 2023), how many candidates had
worked as Ad hoc in IIIT Kottayam before?', which is the
same information/document sought as item (d) in the above
I.A. but put forward in slightly different manner in the RTI
request. The reply given by the PIO to this query was "no
such information is available as a part of the decision of the
selection committee.'"
7. In the above I.A., item (e) requests 'separate marks
scored by the petitioner in the written examination,
PowerPoint presentation, and interview'. The petitioner had
sought the same information/document as query no. 1 in
Exhibit P10. The PIO's reply to query no.1 is as under: "since
the Institute has to protect the candidates' personal matters
and prevent accidental sharing to a third party, you may
visit the PIO of the Institute on a mutually convenient and
pre-decided date and time. Please intimate your preferred
dates of visit (at least 3 preferences) to the undersigned
2025:KER:10381
within 14 days. You will be provided with the information
after ensuring confidentiality, verifying your identity with the
Identity card submitted at the time of the written test, as
well as the admit card signed by the invigilators, etc. Under
CCTV surveillance, you can note down your marks as
recorded in the minutes of the Selection Committee, were
marks of other candidates will be masked". Despite being
given permission to verify the marks as requested, with
instructions to give sufficient notice to the authorities, the
petitioner has not pursued this option and has not intimated
a convenient date for perusing the marks.
8. With respect to query (f), regarding 'the true copy of the
petitioner's answer sheet with marks awarded for each
question', Exhibit P10 reveals that the petitioner had already
made this request in query no. 5 of his RTI application dated
18.02.2024. The reply given by the PIO, as evidenced in
Exhibit P10, states, "since the Institute has to protect the
candidates' personal matters and prevent accidental sharing
to a third party, you may visit the PIO of the Institute on a
mutually convenient and pre-decided date and time. You
may intimate your preferred dates of visit (at least 3
preferences) to the undersigned within 14 days. You will be
provided with the information after ensuring confidentiality,
verification of your identity with the Identity card submitted
at the time of the written test, as well as the admit card
signed by the invigilators, under CCTV surveillance. You can
2025:KER:10381
note down the total marks awarded to you as marked in the
answer sheet. Marks awarded to each question will be
masked as they fall under Section 8(1)(j) and Section
8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, related to invigilators."
9. With respect to item (g), the petitioner requested 'all the
details of the members of the interview board, including
their names, designations, and address'. Referring to Exhibit
P10 again, it can be seen that query no.10 put forth by the
petitioner in his RTI request dated 18.02.2024 is the same
as the information/document sought as item (g) in the
above I.A. The answer furnished to him by the PIO stated
that 'personal information could not be disclosed under
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.'
10. In the case of Central Board of Secondary Education
v. Aditya Bandopadhyay [(2011) 8 SCC 497], the Apex
Court, as per the dictum laid down in para 63, observed that
where the information sought is not a part of the record of
a public authority, and where such information is not
required to be maintained under any law or the rules or
regulations of the public authority, the Act, does not cast an
obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such
non-available information and then furnish it to an
applicant. Further, in the above-mentioned decision,
paragraphs 52 and 53 highlight the consequences that
interviewers or members of the interview board would be
exposed to in the event their names and addresses or
2025:KER:10381
individual marks given by them are directed to be disclosed.
Firstly, the members of the Board are likely to be exposed
to danger to their lives or physical safety. Secondly, it will
hamper effective performance and discharge of their duties
as examiners. The Court observed that such information is
available with the examining body in confidence with the
interviewers and therefore, a direction to furnish the names
and addresses of the interviewers would certainly be
opposed to the very spirit of Section 8(1)(g) of the Act. The
same dictum has been followed later in Bihar Public
Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi,
[(2012) 13 SCC 61], in paragraphs 28 and 29.
11. As per item (h), the petitioner requested 'separate
marks awarded to him by each member of the Interview
Board'. This query was reiterated in Exhibit P10 as query no.
13. The answer given to him by the PIO stated that 'personal
information could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) and
8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005' since it would endanger the life
or physical safety of the members of the Selection
Committee. This dictum is laid down in the decisions
mentioned in paragraph 9.
12. The next item (i) concerned 'the reason for not calling
the petitioner for the interview for Assistant Professor Grade
I, even after clearing the common written test'. As
evidenced from Exhibit P10, this question was raised by the
petitioner as query no. 2. It has been duly answered by the
2025:KER:10381
PIO in the following manner: "the reason is not applicable
under RTI Act. As per records, the Selection Committee does
not recommend any of the applicants for Assistant Professor
Grade I for the Department of ECE".
13. It is most respectfully submitted that it is established
as a legal principle that the definition of "information" under
section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 does not include answers
to the question 'why'. The PIO cannot be expected to
communicate the reasons as to why a certain thing was
done or not done in the sense of a justification because a
citizen makes a requisition about information. In this regard,
reliance is placed on Celsa Pinto v. Goa State Information
Commission, 2008 SCC Online Bom 352. In the present
case, the petitioner submitted an application seeking
reasons for not being called for the interview. As per Section
6 of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information can be
accessed that is held by or under the control of the public
authority. The information sought by the petitioner could not
have been with the public authority, nor could they have
accessed this information. Hence, neither the PIO nor the
1st Respondent Institute was obliged to give any reason as
to why he was not called.
14. It is evident from the above submissions that the
petitioner has repeatedly requested items (a) to (i) of the
above I.A., despite having already filed numerous RTI
requests seeking the very same information/documents
2025:KER:10381
from the 1st respondent Institute. The petitioner received
replies to his RTI requests from the PIO of the 1st
respondent Institute, and for the very same items (a) to (i),
further appealed before the First Appellate Authority (the
additional 4th respondent) upon being dissatisfied with the
replies given by PIO. The First Appellate Authority, in turn,
upheld the replies given by the PIO and disposed of the first
appeal. Furthermore, the petitioner has even approached
the Central Information Commissioner, preferring a second
appeal which is still pending. As is evident from the
documents produced by the petitioner himself in the writ
petition, it is crystal clear that he had already taken action
for eliciting information/documents identical to items (a) to
(i), in spite of which he had filed a separate application
before this Hon'ble Court under the pretext that he had not
been given those information/documents. Since the
petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean
hands and has not put forward the correct set of facts before
the Court, it is humbly submitted that the requests made as
per items (a) to (i) should be rejected in limine.
15. With respect to item (j), it is humbly pointed out that
the video recordings of the written examination, PowerPoint
presentation and interview are not preserved. Video
Recordings were made solely to ensure the smooth conduct
of the recruitment proceedings and to avoid doubts about
the functioning and the selection process undertaken by the
2025:KER:10381
Selection Committee. After due review by the Selection
Committee, it was determined that there was no relevance
in preserving the video recordings and hence, they were not
preserved.
16. It is further pointed out that as per item (j), petitioner
had also requested to ascertain which members of the
Interview Board were present and whether the additional 4th
respondent (the Registrar of 1st Respondent Institute) was
present during the written examination, PowerPoint
presentation, and interview. Regarding this, it may be
brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that the counter
affidavit filed by the additional 4th respondent in I.A. No.1
of 2024, against being impleaded in the above writ petition
in his personal capacity, clearly enumerates the role of the
Registrar in the recruitment process. From Annexure R4(a)
produced along with the counter affidavit, it is clear that his
participation is only to facilitate and assist the Selection
Committee as and when convened, for which the Registrar
is specifically authorized by the Director. Additionally,
Section 24(2) of the Indian Institutes of Information
Technology (Public-Private Partnership) Act, 2017 also
outlines the powers and duties assigned to the Registrar
under the Act or by Director of the concerned Institute.
17. With respect to the last item (k), which requests the
furnishing of true copy of appointment orders issued by the
1st respondent Institute, either by email or by hand or by
2025:KER:10381
post, to additional respondents 5 to 16, the selected
candidates, it is humbly pointed out that this information/
these documents are personal and cannot be furnished.
Moreover, it is contended that the petitioner has not made
any application under the RTI Act to the appropriate
authority, which he is bound to approach first. Without
making such an application, and by side-tracking this
process, the petitioner cannot approach this Hon'ble Court
for furnishing information/documents, which, in fact, have
to be provided only by the concerned authorities (either the
PIO or First Appellate Authority or CIC) under the relevant
provisions of the RTI Act. For the aforementioned reasons,
the requests made under clauses (j) and (k) should not be
entertained by this Hon'ble Court."
11. The perusal of the reasons stated in the counter affidavit
would show that the 1st respondent has raised some serious
objections regarding some of the information and documents
sought by the appellant, for the reason that they are undisclosable
as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. From
the counter affidavit extracted above, it is clear that the un-
objected portions of the information sought by the appellant under
the Right to Information Act are furnished to him by the 1st
2025:KER:10381
respondent. But nothing has been stated in the affidavit filed by
the appellant about that information already furnished to him and
he filed the interlocutory application as if no information was
provided to him.
12. The appellant is challenging the selection process by
raising various contentions. According to the learned counsel for
the appellant in order to proceed with the writ petition, the
information and documents sought are highly necessary before
the stage of hearing of the writ petition. According to him, the
appellant has no information on those aspects. Then how the
appellant came to know or understood that no proper procedure
was followed or the selection process was conducted in a biased
manner by the 1st respondent is best known to the appellant
alone.
13. As said above, in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.
No.2 of 2024, no document or information-wise reason is stated
by the appellant. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads thus:
2025:KER:10381
"1. I am the petitioner in this Writ Petition(Civil), I am
swearing this affidavit on my behalf and I am conversant
with the facts of the case. The Writ Petition (Civil) has been
filed praying for setting aside the selection process to the
post of Assistant Professor Grade II in the Department of
Electronics and Communication Engineering in the 1st
respondent Indian Institute of Information Technology,
Kottayam (IIT, Kottayam) declaring the selection as illegal;
a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to hold an
enquiry/disciplinary action against those responsible for the
illegal selection process; and for incidental reliefs.
2. The selection of respondents 5 to 16, is under challenge
on various grounds, including, omission and failure to
mention the number of posts in the Notification, making the
entire selection illegal, illegality in the constitution of the
Selection Committee; and allocation of 50% of marks for
Interview, which runs counter to the dicta of the Honourable
Supreme Court.
3. This Honourable Court has admitted the Writ Petition and
has on 16.08.2024, directed the respondents to file their
counter affidavits within three weeks.
4. Prior to the filing of the above writ petition, the 1 st
respondent Institute had refused to supply information
relating to the selection-process, requested by the
petitioner through a number of RTI Act Applications. The
information sought, is germane to, and is absolutely
2025:KER:10381
necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. The
following information/documents in the possession of the 1st
respondent IIIT, Kottayam, are required to be produced
before this Hon'ble Court:
xxx xxx xxx"
(underline supplied)
14. When this Court raised a query regarding the non-
mentioning of the reason for seeking large number of information
and documents in the affidavit filed, it cannot be claimed as a
third-party case found by the Court. In Geetanjali Tiwari [2024
SCC Online SC 3776] the caution against finding a third-party
case was made by the Apex Court in an entirely different context.
A reading of Paragraph 37 of the said judgment makes it clear;
which reads thus:
"37. Based on the aforesaid authorities, we hold that while
deciding a writ petition on the basis of affidavits, the writ
court's enquiry ought to be restricted to the case pleaded by
the parties and the evidence that they have placed on record
as part of the writ petition or the counter/reply affidavit, as
the case may be. Findings of the court have to be based on
the pleadings and the evidence produced before it by the
2025:KER:10381
parties. It is well-nigh impermissible for the writ court to
conjecture and surmise and make out a third case, not
pleaded by the parties, based on arguments advanced in
course of hearing."
15. In this case, the pleadings which ought to have been
therein in the affidavit, so as to facilitate the Court to arrive at a
finding regarding the necessity of a direction to be issued to
produce the document or furnish the information are completely
absent in the affidavit. Hence the dictum in Geetanjali Tiwari's
[2024 SCC Online SC 3776] is not applicable to the facts of this
case.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant by relying on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union
of India [(1984) 3 SCC 161] argued that the jurisdiction
exercisable under Article 226 by this Court is equal or wider than
the jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. By relying on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Saksena K.K v. International Commission on
Irrigation and Drainage[(2015) 4 SCC 673] the learned
2025:KER:10381
counsel argued that the power of issuing direction, orders or writs
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not limited to the
Government or authority which qualifies to be a State under Article
12. The power of the High Court takes within its sweep more
authorities than stipulated in Article 12. Further by relying on the
judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Onkar Dattatray
Kalmankar v. Public Information Officer [2024 SCC OnLine
Bom 3513], the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
submitted that the marks awarded to a candidate in a selection
process is not a personal information which can be refused under
the provisions of the Right to Information Act.
17. In the instant case, there is no dispute pertaining to the
power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The issue before us is the necessity of allowing the interlocutory
application, i.e., I.A.No.2 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge to
provide the information and documents which are mentioned in
the said application. Therefore, the judgments of the Apex court
in Bandhua Mukti Morcha [(1984) 3 SCC 161] and Saksena
2025:KER:10381
[(2015) 4 SCC 673] are not relevant to the facts herein.
Similarly, the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Onkar
Dattatray Kalmankar [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3513] was
passed in a matter where the petitioner therein was refused the
information by the Public Information Commissioner as well as the
Appellate Authority when applied under the provisions of the Right
to Information Act, holding that the information sought is personal
information. That is not the issue before us. The interlocutory
application filed by the appellant was not dismissed for the reason
that the information and documents requested therein are
personal information falling in the exempted category under the
Right to Information Act. Therefore, the said judgment is also not
applicable to the facts of the case.
18. The Impugned order would show that the learned Single
Judge has not dismissed the interlocutory application. The learned
Single Judge only opined that the document sought by the
appellant could be called for at the time of the hearing, if found
necessary. No prejudice would be caused to the appellant by that
2025:KER:10381
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
19. Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act deals with appeals
from judgment or order of Single Judge. As per Section 5(i) of
the Act an appeal shall lie to a Bench of Two Judges from a
judgment or order of a Single Judge in the exercise of original
jurisdiction. In K.S Das v. State of Kerala [1992 (2) KLT
358(L.B.)] a larger Bench of this Court held that the word 'order'
in Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act includes, apart from
other orders, orders passed by the High Court in miscellaneous
petitions filed in the writ petitions provided the orders are to be in
Courts pending the writ petition. In the said judgment, it is further
held that an appeal would lie against such orders only if the orders
substantially affect or touch upon the substantial rights or
liabilities of the parties or are matters of moment and cause
substantial prejudice to the parties.
20. In Union Territory of Lakshadweep v. Salmikoya.
K. [2025 (1) KLT 65] this Court considered the maintainability
of an appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958,
2025:KER:10381
and held that an appeal under that provision is maintainable
against an interlocutory order only if the order substantially affect
or touch upon the substantial rights or liabilities of the parties or
which are matters of the moment and cause substantial prejudice
to the parties.
21. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions
referred to supra, we find that the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge cannot be treated as of such a nature
substantially affecting or touching upon the substantial rights or
liabilities of the appellant. If the information sought by the
appellant was not provided by the Public Information Officer under
the Right to Information Act, then his remedy is under that Act
itself. He cannot fish out evidence by filing an application in the
writ petition, that also without any reason stated for seeking such
information and documents.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the rival submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient ground
to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
2025:KER:10381
In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
sks
