S.Esaiah v. The Board of Secondary Education, A.P
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 05 Jul 2010
- Bench
- C V NAGARJUNA REDDY
Outcome
Allowed
In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the petitioner :
Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for School Education The Court made the following
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to furnish to the petitioner his date of birth as entered in the SSC records of March, 1976. The petitioner, an employee of Singareni Collieries, has failed SSC examinations held in the month of March, 1976. Evidently a dispute about his date of birth has arisen with his employer. Therefore, the petitioner approached the respondents for furnishing information on his date of birth as available in their records. The request of the petitioner was turned down by Proceedings Rc.No.01/PIO/2009 dated
Operative part
16.02.2009 of respondent No.2. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the abovementioned proceedings, respondent No.2 informed that as there is no provision for issuing date of birth certificate for the students, who failed in the examinations, he cannot issue date of birth certificate. Respondent No.2 advised the petitioner that he can obtain the age/date of birth certificate from the Head Master of the School concerned. In my opinion, rejection of the petitioner’s request to furnish information on the date of birth entry in the SSC records maintained by the respondents constitutes patent arbitrariness. Even if the petitioner has asked for date of birth certificate and there is no provision for issuance of such a certificate, nothing prevented respondent No.2 from furnishing information as to the actual date of birth, which is available in the SSC records of the petitioner maintained by the respondents. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that the information sought for by the petitioner is either a privileged information or the one which falls under any of the exceptions under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to furnish the information sought for by the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.37644 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th July, 2010
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right to Information Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 05 Jul 2010. The bench was C V NAGARJUNA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.