Shanti Prakash v. Central Information Comission & Ors

'1 INTHEHIGH COURTOFDELHIAT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5165/2015 SHANTIPRAKASH " .. , retitioner Through: Petitioner-in-person. Versus CENTRALINFORMATIONCOMMISSION&ORS....Respondents Through: IVto. Anil Kumar Sangal and Mr. Siddharth Sangal, Advs. for R-2&3/SBL AND 8+ W.P.(C) 7124/2015 SHANTIPRAKASH ^ T-u T. . . Petitioner 1hrough: Petitioner-in-person. Versus THEFIRSTAPPELALTEAUTHORTY&ANR Respondents hiough: Mr. Anil Kumar Sangal and Mr. SiddharthSangal,Advs.for R CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICERAJIVSAHAIENDLAW k 0/ order X" _

14.09.2015 CMNo.l95.M/2ni5(ofpetitionerfordeli-finnofR-1fromthe parties)inW.P.rQ No.:=;t(;-;/70i5 arrajLol respondentsNo.2&3StateBankofIndia(SBI)has noobjection.

¶2Allowed.

¶3Theapplicationisdisposedof. ^•P.(C) 5165/2015&W.P.(C) 7I24/20I5 Page 1of6 e e eeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeee ee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeee eeeeeee eeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeee ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee eeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee eeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e eee eeeeeeeeee eeeeee eeeeeeeeeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e eeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee -s

¶22AperusaloftherecordshowsthattheCPIOandtheFirstAppellate AuthorityoftherespondentSBIdeclinedtofurnishthesaidinformationon thegroundofthesamepertainingtothirdparty.CIC,videimpugnedorder dated6'^January,2015hasdirectedtheCPIOofSBItofurnishonlythe marksobtainedbythepetitionerandhasnotgivenanyreasonforupholding theordersofCPIOandFirstAppellateAuthorityofSBIofpetitionerbeing notentitledtomarksofothercandidateswhoparticipatedinthecompetitive interview.

¶23TherespondentsNo.2&3 havenotfiledanyreplyandthecounsel appearingfortherespondentSBIdoesnothaveinstructions,whetherthere areanyrulesofthesaidpromotionquadisclosureofthemerit list. He howeverstatesthatnomeritlistofcandidatesisdeclared.Itisalsothecase ofthecounselfortherespondentSBIthatthepetitioner,whowasoneofthe participatingcandidate,canatbestbeintimatedthemarks oftheselected candidatesandnotthemarksofalltheotherswhowereinterviewed.Itis statedthatalargenumberofcandidateswereinterviewedanddisclosureof j themarkssecuredbythemwouldnotserveanypurposeofthepetitioner.

¶24Itprimafacieappearstome thatoncepromotionisbyholding interviewandiscompetitive,thereshouldbenoobjectiontothepublication ofthemerit listofthesaidcompetition. However, without examining whetheranyrulesexistornotinthisregardandwithoutcallingforareplyin thisregard,Idonotwanttorenderanyfinalconclusionthereon.

¶25Ratherthancallingforthereplyoftherespondents,itisdeemed appropriatetoremittheAppealNo.CIC/MP/A/2014/000255totheCICfor W.P.(C)5165/2015&W.P.(C)7124/2015 " , Page5of6 eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee e eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeee e e eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee