LAWS(APH)-2010-1-38

KUNCHE DURGA PRASAD Vs. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF CHIEF MANAGER OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPN LTD

Decided On January 20, 2010
KUNCHE DURGA PRASAD Appellant
V/S
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF CHIEF MANAGER (HR), OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPN. LTD., RAJAHMUNDRY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'ONGC') issued advertisement dated 3-1-2008 inviting applications for appointment to the post of 'Field Officer'. The 1st petitioner and several others applied for the said post. In the selection, 285 candidates were selected and appointed, whereas the 1st petitioner was not selected. The 1st petitioner and 16 others filed W.P. No. 17355 of 2008 before this Court challenging the selection.

(2.) The 2nd petitioner is a practising advocate. On behalf of the 1st petitioner he filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), before the 1st respondent seeking information on three aspects namely, (1) the number of SC candidates selected, (2) the name of the authority who selected the candidates; and (3) the date of issue of posting order to 285 candidates and their dates of joining. He has also made a request to furnish copies of the qualification certificates submitted by the selected candidates. Through letter dated 13-2-2009, the 1st respondent furnished information on the three aspects referred to above. So far as furnishing of copies of qualification certificates is concerned, he took the view that it is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission--the 3rd respondent who passed an order dated 21-5-2009 upholding the stand taken by the 1st respondent. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) Sri. D. Ramalinga Swamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the 1st respondent was under an obligation to furnish copies of the qualification certificates furnished by the selected candidates. He contends that the certificates referred to above do not fall within the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and that there was no justification for the respondents in not acceding to the request of the petitioners.