Dr. Payal Garg vs The State of Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—In the writ petition, the one and the only contention is this that the father of the Petitioner, under Right to Information Act, came to learn from the Commission that the Petitioner is one of the selected candidates. In paragraph 13 of the petition, it has been stated that the Commission had provided documents of 53 selected candidates, in which the Petitioner�s document was numbered from 423 to 438, and it seems that the Petitioner was duly qualified in the selection process. It has further been stated in the said paragraph that in reply to the application dated 9th December, 2010, the authority concerned has provided the list of 53 selected candidates for the post of Homeopathic Medical Officers, in which the name of Payal Garg, i.e., the Petitioner, has been mentioned at serial No. 29.

It is the case of the Petitioner that when the names and particulars of the selected candidates were published, surprisingly, it was found that the same does not include the name of the Petitioner. With this case, Petitioner has come before this Court.

In support of the allegation, contained in paragraph 13 of the writ petition, not a single document has been annexed to the writ petition. There is a specific allegation that the Commission, in reply to the quarries made, provided the list of 53 selected candidates, which contained the name of the Petitioner, but no document has been annexed which would show that the Commission had provided any such list to the Petitioner.

We, accordingly, dismiss this writ petition at the threshold.