Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kishan vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission And ... on 6 September, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Civil Writ Petition No. 23886 of 2011 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 23886 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 06.09.2012
Ram Kishan .. Petitioner
versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and others .. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pawan Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
In response to the order dated 04.09.2012, Mr. P.D. Verma, Secretary of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short "the Commission") has appeared in person in Court. He was apologetic that no representative from the Commission was there to assist the counsel for the State on the last date of hearing. He submitted that in future he will take care that such situation does not arise.
Mr. P.D. Verma further submitted that on receipt of application in response of any advertisement for selection to the posts advertised, the entire data is fed in the computer. After processing, when the selection is made, print out thereof is kept. The data is not retained in the electronic form. List of selected candidates along with their record is sent to the requisitioning Department. The print out of the record pertaining to all the candidates, who were found eligible is kept on record with the Commission. It was further submitted that in the present case 1983 candidates were selected for the post of PTIs' in the State of Haryana. The aforesaid Civil Writ Petition No. 23886 of 2011 -2- selection is already under challenge before this Court in 45 different petitions, which are stated to the pending before Augustine George Masih J. It was further pointed out that in the aforesaid petitions, challenge has been made for selection in all the categories.
The petitioner in the present petition has also sought the record of the selected candidates to enable him to challenge the same. As selection in all the categories is already under challenge before this Court, no further orders are required to be passed as far as prayer of the petitioner is concerned.
The petition is disposed of.
The petitioner further referred to provisions of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "the Act"), which, inter alia, provides that a public authority is required to maintain record in computerized form. Though the result of the selected candidates is displayed on the website but it is in the form of roll numbers and not in the form of names and addresses thereof. He further submitted that the criteria for selection is also not displayed on the website, when the posts are advertised. On account of this, number of applications are filed under the Act for supply of information.
Learned counsel for the State seeks time to apprise the Court about the steps to be taken to ensure that the entire relevant data is uploaded on the website of the Commission, so as to enable any of the applicants to get information from the website of the Commission and he/she invokes jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act only if certain further information is required.
Adjourned to 06.10.2012.
06.09.2012 (Rajesh Bindal) sharmila Judge