- (1.) Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, 'CBI') is before this Court challenging the order dated 2.4.2012, passed by Central Information Commission (for short, 'the Commission') directing the petitioner to supply certain information to respondent No. 2.
(2.) The case pertains to selection of teachers in Union Territory, Chandigarh. Finding that there was large scale bungling in the selection of teachers in Union Territory, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint with the petitioner along with number of documents in support thereof, which, inter-alia, established that persons, who were lower in merit, had been called for interview leaving the persons higher in merit. Certain candidates, who secured very less marks in the interview, were selected.
(3.) Finding the information furnished along with the complaint to be sufficient to hold some preliminary enquiry, the matter was enquired into, however, ultimately a report was sent to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh recommending certain corrective steps. In the same case, simultaneously on a complaint received by the police, FIR was registered, which was under investigation. Respondent No. 2 had sought information and documents from the petitioner pertaining to the complaint made by him upto the stage the report was sent to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Though initially it was directed that the requisite information can be supplied to respondent No. 2, however, later on it was denied taking the plea that a petition bearing C.W.P. No. 17021 of 2009 Karamjit Singh v. Union of India and others, seeking a direction for handing over investigation in the FIR already registered by Chandigarh Police for the same offence to CBI, was pending in this court.;