High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No. 6 in asking the personal information of the petitioner and the action of the 1st respondent in ordering the 2nd respondent to provide such information vide Rc.No. 100/86/RTl/2025, dated 29-4-2025 of the 7th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to Section I (1) of RTI Act and the law on the subject and consequently direct the respondents not to furnish any personal details of the petitioner to the unofficial respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent not to furnish the information sought for by the unofficial respondent by suspending the operation of the impugned proc.Rc.No. '100/B6iRTl/2025, dated 29-4-2025 of the 7th respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MUKRAM KHAN, REP. FOR SRI D.BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 5: GP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.7: GP FOR lT & RTI The Court made the following: ORDER l I i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.16 73O of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Mukram Khan, learned counsel representing Sri D.Balakishan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for respondent Nos'1 to 5 and learned Government Pleader for IT and RTI appearing for respondent No.7, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the nature of /s involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.6 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, the 6th respondent herein had made an application on 28.04.2025 to. the 1't respondent, under the provisions of Section B of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act), seeking certain information relating to petitioner's appointment as School Assistant (SA) (Social) in Upper Primary School, Kummera Village, Chevella Mandal, Rangareddy District; and that the said apDlication has been forwarded by the lst respondent to the 2nd respondent on 29.04.2025, directing him to furnish information sought 2 F1 for thereunder to the unofficial respondent herein_applicant, which action of the respondents_authorities it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

4. Petitioner contends that the information sought 6th respondent herein is the personal information of the peti cannot be provided to the unofficial respondent in an appli under the Act, as the same is exempt in terms of Section B for by the tioner, which cation made (1Xj) of the Act

5. In support of the aforesaid contention, the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Co_ordinate Bench of this Court in W.p..No.7771 of 2018 dt.21.03.2023.

6. per contra, learned Government pleader for IT and RTT appearing on behalf of respondent No.7 would submit that the information sought for by the unofficiar respondent herein is onry in reration to the appointment of the petitioner as sA (social) .and no personar information of the petitioner has been sought thereunder for her to feel aggrieved or claim such personar information is being exempt from being furnished in terms ofSection 8(1)(i) ofthe Act. 7. Learned Government pleader further submits that the 6h respondent by the application only sought for the date of appointment of the petitioner as sA (social) and arso as to in which year District q*.* 7v 3 selection committee (DSC) the petitioner was selected and other details relating to her selection as to category and the percentage of physical handicap being claimed by her and the said information sought for being in relation to appointment is not exempt under Section B(lXi) of the Act' B. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged'

9. Though the petitioner claims of the information sought for by the 6th respondent under application dt.28.04.2025 to be personal information and thus cannot be provided under the provisions of the Act being exempt intermsofsub-clause[)ofclause(1)ofSectionBoftheAct,itistobe noted that the information that has been sought for is only with regard to thedateofappointmentofthepetitioneraswellastheyearoftheDSCin which the petiuoner has been selected for being appointed as sA (social) and also the category of her selection. The said information of selection cannotbeconsideredaspersonalinformationofthepetitionerforher either to feel agitated or the said information being exempt from disclosureintermsofsub-clauseU)ofclause(1)ofSectionBoftheAct. l0.RelianceplacedbythepetitioneronthedecisionoftheCo-ordinate Bench of this court in w.P.No.7771 0f 2o1B cannot advance the case of the petitioner, as in the said case, the information that was sought for was relating to the disclosure of service record of the person mentioned therein tnd, also declaration of annual property statements, assets and 4 liabilities, which are admittedly a personal information of the person to whom they belong.

11. Since, In the facts of the present case that is not being the position and on the other hand, the 6th respondent having only sought information as to when the petitioner was selected as SA (Social), the year of DSC and percentage of her physicar handicap and arso the authority issuing the said certificate, it is to be noted that the date of appointment, and the year of her selection cannot be considered as personal, and at the most the information relating to the percentage of physical handicap and the authority issuing the handicap certificate can only be considered as personal information relating to the petitioner which is exempt from being furnished under the provisions of the Act.

12. As the 6th respondent had not only sought for the generai inFormation but also the personal information as to the percentage of handicap of the petitioner, this court is of the view that the respondents- authorities are to be directed to consider thi-, application made by the 6th respondent for furnishing information rerating to the petitioner under the Act to the extent of general information and not the personal inFormation. k-+ 1 5 T Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall 13

14. stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.P.GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR '1 SECTION OFFICER

1. The District Educational Officer, Rangareddy District at Kongarakalan. 2. The Mandal Educational Officer, Chevella, Rangareddy District. 3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad 4. The Director of School Education, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 5. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

6. The Public lnformation officer, office of the District Education office Ranga Reddy District at Kongara Kalan

7. One CC to SRI D.BALA KTSHAN RAO, Advocate tOpUCl B. Two CCs to GP FOR EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

9. Two CCs to GP FOR tT & RTl, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

10.Two CD Copies BSR GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 ORDER WP.No.16730 of 2025 . r \:;- l'.liJ . DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS