B. Ramesh v. The Public Relation Officer/Administrative Officer, Police Recruitmen

Counsel for the Appellant: MR.D.GOVERDHANACHARY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.401 of 2009 Oral Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Assailing the order of the learned single Judge dated 11.2.2009 made in Writ Petition No. 11736 of 2008, the appellant filed the present writ appeal. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that he appeared for the competitive examinations held for selection of Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil- Men) for the year 2002. However, he could not be selected. Alleging that the selections were made contrary to G.O. Ms. No.48, Home (Police-C), dated

24.2.2001, the appellant filed O.A. No. 541 of 2003 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 541 of 2003, he filed Writ Petition No. 16283 of 2006 before this Court. Subsequently, he made an application to the 1st respondent on 25.6.2007 under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) requesting him to furnish the following documents:

1. Total selection list with names in Zone-I to Zone VI.

2. Marks in physical test, Paper-I, Paper-II and total marks obtained by the selected candidates including Hall Ticket No.1252216 in Zone VI.

3. List of selected local and non-local candidates reservation in Zone VI showing cut-off number in the following categories. (i) Cut-off marks in open category (ii) cut-off marks in B.C., A,B,C,D category (iii) Cut off marks in SC/ST category (iv) Procedure adopted in selecting the candidates in the year 2007 or previous years. (v) What is the cut-off marks in open category (30%) and what is the cut-off marks in 70% reservation quota. (vi) List of non-local selected candidates in Zone V and Zone VI and what is the preference given for non-local candidates (order of priority) and xerox copies of application OMR sheet forms. (vii) Xerox copies of OMR answer sheets, Paper-I, Paper-II along with the answer key, ABCD code Paper-I and Paper-II of selected candidates including the candidates of Hall Ticket No.1252216. However, after exchange of some correspondence, respondent has furnished certain documents vide letter dated 4.10.2007. The appellant again made another application on 25.10.2007 to the 1st respondent requesting him to furnish the following information: (i) Cut off marks of 30% open to all-zonal and communal roster and also 70% local with communal roster (ii) Xerox copies of applications OMR sheet forms in order of priority (Civil SIs-Men) among the selected candidates (iii) Xerox copies of OMR answer sheets, Paper-I and Paper-II along with answer key ABCD paper-I and Paper-II of selected candidates (Civil Sis-Men) including question papers ABCD. When the authorities did not take action on the aforesaid representation, he filed Writ Petition No. 544 of 2008 before this Court and the same was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to furnish the information sought for by the appellant. However, it appears, during the pendency of the aforementioned writ petition, the 3rd respondent seemed to have sent a notice to the appellant, but the appellant failed to appear before him. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has passed orders on 11.2.2008 expressing his inability to furnish information on items 4 to 6 sought for by the appellant in his representation on the ground that the same was confidential. However the concerned authority was directed to furnish the information with regard to non-local candidates and cut off marks for O.Cs., and accordingly the information was furnished by the State Level Police Recruitment Board on 22.2.2008 showing the cut off marks. The grievance of the appellant is that he was not furnished information with regard to roster points category wise. He also stated that the respondents refused to furnish the OMR sheets on the ground that they are confidential. He further stated that even though a policy decision was taken by the Government on 4.4.2007 that answer sheets of all examinations should be furnished, the respondents are refusing to furnish the same. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant writ petition before the learned single Judge seeking appropriate directions to the respondents. The learned single Judge, by the order impugned in this appeal, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has been asking for the information relating to the entire selection posts, including the procedure followed for the year 2007. The learned single Judge further observed in the impugned order that the respondent-authorities have already furnished the information, which was permissible at their level and no illegality could be found with the action of the respondents. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned single Judge without taking into consideration the fact that the grievance of the appellant is a genuine one, erred in dismissing the writ petition. It is also contended that even though the respondents have filed counter affidavit in the instant writ petition, the same was found to be inadequate and they were directed to file additional counter. He further stated that even the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondents does not disclose the reasons for non-furnishing of the information sought for by the appellant. Hence, the writ appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Admittedly, Writ Petition No. 16283 of 2006 filed by the appellant challenging the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 541 of 2003 is still pending for adjudication before this Court. As and when the said writ petition comes up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant can make a request before the learned single Judge to call for the records relating to the selection process and as and when such records are received, the appellant can as well go through the same. That apart, since the appellant has been pursuing parallel remedies, one before this Court as well as before the respondent-authorities, the appellant cannot be permitted to file another writ petition for the same cause, that too, when the writ petition filed by him is still pending before this Court. Hence, we are of the opinion that the learned single judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. The order of the learned single judge does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Date: 6th July, 2009 ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J