STATE OF KERALA Vs. ANAKATHIL AJAYKUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are dealing with six writ appeals, five of which being W.A.Nos.2012, 2013, 2014, 2017 & 2018 of 2016 are filed by the State; whereas W.A.No.2163 of 2016 has been filed by an individual, who was the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7665 of 2016. W.A.Nos.2012, 2013, 2014, 2017 & 2018 of 2016, the State intra court appeals, arise from different writ petitions, namely, W.P.(C) Nos. 18722, 18744, 17944, 20439 & 18552 of 2016.

(2.) These writ petitions were filed by five candidates, who were selected and recommended by the Selection Committee in terms of section 15(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for being appointed as State Information Commissioners. The Governor having not notified them as such for appointment and there being delay, the writ petitions were filed and a mandamus was sought which was issued by the learned single Judge. The State being aggrieved, has filed these five intra appeals, namely WA.Nos. 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017 & 2018 of 2016.

(3.) So far as W.A. No. 2163 of 2016 is concerned, the appellant was an applicant, who had applied for the post of State Information Commissioner pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Government and was aggrieved by the unceremonious way in which his name was omitted by the Secretary of the General Administration Department, in the short list prepared by him. It may be noted that in his writ petition, he made the then, Leader of Opposition as a party respondent. The Leader of Opposition is one of the members of the selection committee. In course of proceedings, the Leader of Opposition filed a counter- affidavit, being the 3rd respondent, bringing some facts on record, which have not been disputed. We will take note of those aspects at the appropriate stage. This writ petitioner sought quashing of the recommendation as made by the Committee under Section 15(3) of the Act and for a direction to the State to conduct a proper selection to the post of the State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in a fair and transparent manner. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as premature on the ground that the Governor had not yet taken any decision in the matter and therefore, the challenge was premature. He is aggrieved by this dismissal of the writ petition. This writ petition was dismissed prior to the other writ petitions which were later allowed.