Alam Singh v. Union of India

1. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the Central Information Commission and to hold that the information sought by the petitioner is not exempted under Section 24 of the RTI Act; issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.[2] and 3 to place on record the information sought by the 2014:DHC:4302-DB petitioner through RTI from the respondents and issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to place on record the policy under which the selection of candidates were made to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Stenographer) and Head Constable (Ministerial) as published in the employment newspaper dated 27.03.2010.

2. The petitioner who is serving in Border Security Force (in short ‘BSF’) as a Constable had applied for recruitment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) against a departmental quota vacancy. As per the laid down criteria, the selection process was divided into two phases: First phase comprised of Written Examination while the Second phase comprised of i) Physical Measurement; ii) Typing Speed Test; iii) Computer Knowledge Test; iv) Documentation and then Interview and Medication Examination.

3. As per the petitioner, he had qualified all the tests prescribed under the said two phases but he was not selected to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial). This petitioner had also filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.8558/2011 earlier but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.12.2011. The petitioner also filed a RTI application on 05.10.2011 to seek information with respect to the aforesaid result dated 01.03.2011 but respondent No.2- the Directorate General Border Security Force vide letter dated 14.10.2011 refused to give any information with regard to the said result. The petitioner once again approached the Ministry of Home Affairs through a RTI application on 03.05.2012 to seek complete information with regard to the selected and non-selected candidates and their respective marks etc. concerning the said recruitment to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) based on the departmental quota test but no such information was made available to the petitioner. The petitioner had preferred an appeal under the RTI Act, and the Appellate Authority vide orders dated 22nd May, 2012 and 31st May, 2012 had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner in view of the fact that the Border Security Force being a Security Organisation is an exempted Organisation, as listed under Scheduled II of the RTI Act and therefore is not amenable to any provision contained in the RTI Act by virtue of Section 24 of the RTI Act. Aggrieved by the orders dated 22.05.2012 and 31.05.2012 passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission (in short ‘CIC’) and the said second appeal also got dismissed by the CIC vide order dated 08.03.2013.

4. The contention raised by the petitioner in the instant petition is that he is legally entitled to know the complete details of each selected and non-selected candidate so as to be sure and satisfied that the respondents have not acted in an arbitrary or whimsical manner in finalising the list of selected candidates. The other contention raised by the petitioner is that the information which was sought by him under the RTI Act is not exempted under Section 24 of the RTI Act.

5. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the stand taken is that after completing the recruitment process the final result of Head Constable (Ministerial) was published on the BSF website on 01.03.2011, wherein under the Departmental General Category, 118 departmental candidates (serving BSF Personnel) were declared to have passed. It is further stated that the petitioner could not be selected as he had secured only 156 marks while the last candidate selected under the Departmental General Category had secured 162 marks. Along with the counter affidavit, the respondents have also placed the said result on record. The respondents have also given the break-up of marks wherein the petitioner had secured, 126 marks in the written test out of 200 marks and 30 marks in the interview out of 50 marks. Although this information was available with the petitioner, he still seeks to pursue this writ petition. There is no ground for doing so. He has not alleged any infraction or violation of any procedure laid down for recruitment of Head Constables in the Departmental Promotion Quota nor is there any allegation of bias or mala fides against any of the officers involved in the recruitment process. The writ petition is clearly without any merit. We find no reason to interfere with the recruitment process carried out by the respondents in selecting the candidates to the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) against the Departmental Quota.

7. We also find no reason, illegality or perversity in the order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the CIC taking a view that the Border Security Force is an exempted Organisation, listed under the Scheduled II of the RTI Act and therefore, is not amenable to any provision contained in the RTI Act by virtue of the provision of Section 24 of the RTI Act. The CIC is also right in observing that the information sought by the petitioner does not pertain to any violation of Human Rights, or any allegation of corruption and this is also the reason why the information sought by the petitioner cannot be made available to him under the proviso of Section 24 of the RTI Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not alleged any corruption against any officer of the recruitment process nor any flaw in it. We are of the view that the petition is misconceived, frivolous and is an abuse of the process of this Court. It deserves to be dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

8. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.25, 000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner with DIG BSF Welfare Fund, FHQ (BSF Contributory Benevolent Fund, New Delhi) within a period of four weeks.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. NAJMI WAZIRI, J. SEPTEMBER 01, 2014 v