Sandeep Prasad vs Right To Information Commission and others

This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being the information seeker had submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before Respondent No. 3 on 18.09.2018, seeking information relating to the recruitment and appointment of Class-III and Class-IV employees made by the concerned office during the period from October, 2017 to August, 2018. The petitioner specifically sought the following information: (i) details of recruitment conducted for Class-III and Class-IV posts and the number of persons appointed; (ii) true copies of the advertisements issued for such recruitment and the permission/approval letters; (iii) number of applications received pursuant to the recruitment; (iv) educational qualifications of the persons appointed; (v) names and posts of the members of the departmental recruitment committee and details of the meetings conducted by the committee; and (vi) copies of the appointment orders issued to the recruited employees. Upon receipt of the RTI application, Respondent No. 3 forwarded the same to the concerned department on 18.09.2018, directing that the requisite information be furnished within the prescribed period. However, the information sought by the petitioner was not properly and completely supplied. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 issued a reminder dated 03.10.2018 to the concerned authorities, including the In-charge, Jeevandeep Samiti and the In-charge Establishment, District Hospital, Dantewada, requesting them to furnish the requisite information. Vide letter dated 16.10.2018, the In-charge Accountant of Jeevandeep Samiti, District Hospital, Dantewada, informed Respondent No. 3 in respect of query No. 1 that no Class-III or Class-IV employee had been appointed in the office of the Civil Surgeon during the period from 2017 to August, 2018. The said response, however, did not furnish the complete information sought by the petitioner under queries No. 1 to 6. Being aggrieved by the non-supply of complete and proper information, the petitioner preferred a first appeal before Respondent No. 2 on 26.10.2018, along with a copy of the original RTI application. Respondent No. 2 thereafter forwarded the appeal to Respondent No. 3 and directed that the requisite information be furnished expeditiously. Despite the aforesaid direction, the petitioner was not supplied with clear, complete and legible information. Respondent No. 2, vide communication dated 19.11.2018, supplied copies of communications dated 01.11.2018 and 02.11.2018, but the information relating to the queries raised by the petitioner remained incomplete and/or illegible and did not effectively answer the specific information sought under the RTI application. Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to prefer a second appeal on 10.12.2018 before Respondent No. 1, which, as stated by the petitioner, has remained pending. Despite repeated applications and appeals, the petitioner has not received the complete, clear and reliable information sought by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner has a serious and bona fide grievance regarding the correctness of the information supplied by the respondents. The respondents have stated that no Class-III and Class-IV employees were appointed during the relevant period, whereas, according to the petitioner, appointments were in fact made in the concerned offices during the period in question. Therefore, the information supplied by the respondents is alleged to be false, incomplete and contrary to the actual records. Information sought by the petitioner relates directly to public recruitment and appointment to Class-III and Class-IV posts, including advertisements, applications received, qualifications of selected candidates, constitution of the recruitment committee, proceedings of the committee and appointment orders. Such information is intrinsically connected with transparency and fairness in public employment and ought to have been furnished in accordance with law, subject only to any specific exemption under the RTI Act. Respondents cannot defeat the petitioner's statutory right to information by furnishing vague, incomplete, illegible or allegedly incorrect information. Once the information sought is available in the official records and is not otherwise exempt from disclosure, the concerned Public Information Officer is required to furnish the information in a clear and intelligible manner in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner has exhausted the statutory remedies available to him by approaching the concerned Public Information Officer, thereafter preferring the first appeal and subsequently filing the second appeal. Despite the same, the petitioner has not been provided the complete and satisfactory information sought in his RTI application. In these circumstances, the action and conduct of the respondents are arbitrary and contrary to the object of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner is therefore entitled to appropriate relief, including a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the pending second appeal and/or to furnish complete, correct and legible information in respect of all the queries raised by the petitioner, in accordance with law.

At the outset, counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that this petition was filed by the petitioner seeking direction to decide the Second Appeal, howver, during pendency of this petition, the Second Appeal has already been decided vide order datd 29.06.2021, as such, relief as sought by the petitoner has already been redressed and this petition has become infructuous.

Counsel for the petitioner would not oppose the submission made by cousnel for Respondent No.1 and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.