Anand Prakash vs Secretary, Medical and Health Services and Another

D.K. Arora, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

By means of present writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide the detail of marks of written examination and rank in the selection list.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has applied for the post of Lab Assistant(Rural) in general category and the Admit-Card was issued by the opposite party No. 2 bearing role No. 224657.

Further submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the selection of Lab Assistant (Rural), 90 marks for written examination and 10 marks for interview are fixed. On the basis of written examination, petitioner''s name was figured in the list of selected candidates but in the list, obtained marks are not shown. Petitioner moved an application on 15.10.2009 for giving information regarding the detail of selection to the information officer in the office of Director General, Medical and Health Services, Lucknow, U.P. u/s 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, but the same has not been provided to the petitioner and hence petitioner is compelled to file present writ petition for seeking directions against the opposite parties to provide the details of marks of written examination and rank in the selection list.

It is admitted position that the petitioner has remedy of appeal u/s 19(1) and thereafter, second appeal u/s 19(3) before State Information Commission under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In the present case, the application was moved by the petitioner on 15.10.2009 before the designated Information Officer and before disposed of his application, petitioner approached this Court for seeking a writ of mandamus for commanding the opposite parties to provide the detail of the marks.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Arunima Baruah Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, while relying in it''s earlier judgment in the case of Jai Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, pleased to observe as under:

The Court would not ordinarily permit a party to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject-matter. But, where one proceeding has been terminated without determination of the lis it cannot be said that the disputant shall be without a remedy.

The action of the petitioner amounts to pursuing two parallel remedies in respect of same cause at the same time.

In view of the above, present writ petition is misconceived and misdirected hence, deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.