UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD, GACHIBOWLI, HYDERABAD' rep bv its v. CENTRAL INFORIVATION COI\4
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, this writ petition is allowed by setting
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Petitioner-University issued Employment notification dated 01.02.2OO7 for filling up lecturer posts and pursuant to the said notification, 14 candidates were called for interview which was held on 26.04.2007 and a candidate was selected under visually handicapped quota and no candidate was selected under open…
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the ResPondents: ..' The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No.28774 of 2OOA
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to ca-ll for the records in Appeal No.cIC/oK/A /2oo}/ooz4o on the file of respondenr No.l and quash the order dated 12.I2.2OO8 passed by respondent No. 1
Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Inspite of service of notice, respondents did not turn up, hence set exparte. Perused the record.
Petitioner-University issued Employment notification dated 01.02.2OO7 for filling up lecturer posts and pursuant to the said notification, 14 candidates were called for interview which was held on 26.04.2007 and a candidate was selected under visually handicapped quota and no candidate was selected under open category and the said post was suggested for re-advertisement. Respondent No.2 who was not even an applicant under the above notification filed an application on 2T.OZ.2OO7 under Right to Information Act, 2oo5 and in response through order dated o3. ro.2oo7, while answering queries, 1 to 4 were refused to be answered on the ground that the identity of the members of the serection '....,' ;l .:: 2 Committee cannot be d'isclosed as the same is confidential and against the same, respondent No'2 preferred and appeal before the first appeilate authority and the appeal was allowed ot 02.O2'2OOB and the Public Information Officer was directed to give the names of the membeis of the Selection Committee, the names of SC/ST representative expert in the said Selection Committee along with his subject and name of thedepartmentintheUniversitytotheappellant.
Public Information Ofhcer was also directed to quote the specific rule by which one expert in the selection committee must be SC / ST representative and all the information shall furnish before 30.12.2OO8' Aggrieved by the said order' Petitioner- University frled the present petition' Learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that 4. Employment notiltcation dated 01 'O2 '2OO7 fot filling up lecturer Posts and pursuant to the said' notifrcation' 14 candidates were called for interview whictr was held on 26.04.2007. Respondent No'2 who was not even an applicant under the above notilication filed an application on 27 .O7 .2OO7 to the Public Information Officer of the University and the same was refused and respondent No'2 preferred an appeal but the appellate authority directed the Pub1ic '3 I I I I I I i I t I i I I I I 3 Information Officer to furnish the information and the said order is illegal.
They have clearly mentioned that as per Section 8 (g) and (i) of the R.T.I Act they cannot disclose the information. It is further stated that if the names of externai experts are exposed, the panel gets exhausted and it amounts to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the external experts and affects the prospects of the candidates attending the interview, as such petitioner preferred the writ petition. 5. Admittediy, respondent No.2 sought for information from the University and it was refused by the University as per Section 8 (g) and (i) of the R.T.I Act. fhe appellate authority directed the public Information Officer to furnish the information, as such writ petition is preferred. Respondents even after receiving the notice did not turn up. The appeilate authority without even considering the rule position a-llowed the appeal and directed the University to furnish the information though it was stated by them that the information is conlidentiai and is contrary to the Section g (g) and (i) of the R.T.I Act.
Operative part
Therefore, the order of the first appellate authorit5r is patently erroneous and is riable to be set aside. , i I i i i I i 4 In the result, this writ petition is allowed by setting 6. aside the order of the respondent No 1 dated 12 '12 '2OO8 passed in Appeal No.CIC/OK/A I2OOBlOOT4O No costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. I lwitn"sstheHon'bllii;;ii;;cniefJusticesuJoYPAUL'onthisrhursdav I That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' ,ir't" ri*iiilv oi n'riv rwo rhousand And rwentv Five "''"""" " ,TRUE COPY// SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY TSNT REGISTRAR A SECTION OFFICER ,l::['ft f i["*?^"fl TJ:B'3:?',9=J6'KbUfSY,XTI3[3,R,YYJ"3|"- 2. Ms.Usha nao, w/o.Ngt kn"oY,-f,on, Bi,io.,{l;'l,i',i9,&,|,!ji|5o;1x nuo'o-t ot High Rise APartment Lot '
3. One CC to M/S INDUS LAW FlRIvl Advocate [OPUC.]
Two CD CoPies To, KKS TKS HIGH COURT DATED:01 t0st2121 .\ ) ORDER WP.No.28T74 of 2OOB ,.- \] .f' 2 D J ,.) I \ 0 3 sEP 2116 t Dt-- I C\l I-:rr ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Lo
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, this writ petition is allowed by setting
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Right to Information Act, 2005.
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.