AJAY KUMAR KUKREJA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arise out of judgement dated 26.4.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dismissing the O.A filed by the petitioner herein for seeking a direction for re-checking or re-evaluation of the answer sheets. While dismissing the O.A the Tribunal, however, allowed the petitioner to make a representation to the concerned authorities for seeking information under R.T.I. Act.

(2.) Resume of the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is summarized hereinafter.

(3.) In the year 2008 Railway Department conducted a departmental examination known as Appendix III (IREM) 2006. This examination is mandatory for promotion to the posts of Section Officers/Inspectors of Station Accounts/Inspectors of Store Accounts. The petitioner claiming to be eligible for the post appeared in the departmental examination held between 15.4.2008 to 23.4.2008 under Roll No. 02174. The petitioner could not qualify the examination, result for which was declared on 13.11.2008. Petitioner applied under the R.T.I Act vide application dated 18.11.2008 for inspection and supply of his answer sheets and key (model answers). This application was rejected by the Public Information Officer on 23.12.2008 on the ground that there were more than 5,000 candidates who appeared in the test. Petitioner filed First Appeal on 26.12.2008 which also came to be dismissed. Consequently, an appeal was preferred before the Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi on 31.3.2009. This appeal was allowed vide order dated 25.5.2009 directing the authority to provide information on points no.6 and 7. On receiving the information, which inter alia includes copies of the answer sheets and key, the petitioner made another application on 4.9.2009 seeking the copies of the answer sheets of those candidates who had been declared passed. This prayer was, however, declined by the authorities. Petitioner yet made another representation on 17.9.2009 asking for re-checking and re-evaluation of his papers. Receiving no answer, the petitioner filed O.A before the Tribunal on 9.3.2010, which has been dismissed vide the impugned judgement.