M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS petition filed under Art.226 of the constitution challenges order dated 2-4-2008 (Annexure - P - 7) allowing the application filed by Sh. Dalip Singh Gill respondent No.2 seeking two types of information from the petitioner. The State Information Commission, Haryana, has allowed the application by directing the petitioner - Haryana Public Service Commission (for brevity 'the HPSC') to furnish the following information : "(a) Criteria adopted by the Commission for selection of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the year 2004 for 145 posts plus 21 posts. (b) How many marks were allotted for academic qualifications, experience and interview during selection process."
(2.) IT is appropriate to mention that the daughter of the applicant - respondent No. 2 has filed C. W. P. No. 7760 of 2007 apparently challenging selection and appointment of some persons on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). He has sought information for use of prosecuting the writ petition. The operative part of the order issuing direction to the petitioner to supply two types of information, referred to above, reads thus : - "After perusing the case in its totality and listening to the arguments from both sides, the State Information Commission is of the opinion that the information being asked for is of general nature. It has no element of confidentiality. It is not related to any individual or person does not invade privacy. The information being asked for has no relationship or bearing on the ongoing Court case C. W. P. No. 7760 of 2007 Meghna Gill v. State of Haryana. The other C. W. P. cited by the respondents are also not related to the case under discussion. They are in any case pre - 2005 when the R. T. I. Act had not come into effect. All such cases in the future are likely to be viewed in different perspective, keeping into consideration the spirit of the RTI Act. Hence, the State Information Commissioner is of the opinion that the stance adopted by the Haryana Public Service Commission with regard to supply of information needs to be adjusted in tune with the spirit of RTI Act to enhance and enjoy public confidence. Keeping in view the above, the following orders are passed : - (a) Haryana Public Service Commission will provide information to the appellant on two counts that he has requested vide his letter dated 29th May, 2007 by 30th April, 2008. (b) Compliance report will be submitted to the State Information Commission by 5th May, 2008." Mr. H. N. Mehtani, learned counsel for the petitioner HPSC has argued that the information sought by the applicant - respondent No. 2 is highly confidential and no useful purpose would be served if it is revealed to the applicant - respondent No. 2, the petitioner has placed reliance on an order dated 21-5-2007 passed by the learned Judges of LPA Bench of Delhi High Court in LPA No. 313 of 2007 (P - 15 titled as UPSC v. Central Information Commission) and has argued that the LPA Bench has stayed the directions of the learned single Judge asking the UPSC to disclose the cut - off marks kept for optional subject as well as General Study of the Civil Services (Preliminary Examination) 2006. Hon'ble Single Bench of the Delhi High Court vide judgment dated 17-4-2007 has issued direction modifying the order passed by the Central Information Commissioner and the aforementioned order passed by the single Judge has been stayed by the LPA Bench on 21-5-2007. He has also submitted that in a number of cases this Court as well as Hon'ble the Supreme Court has rejected such type of prayer made by the candidates or their relations. He has placed reliance on the order dated 7-11 - 2003 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C. W. P. No. 8197 of 2003 (Annexure P - 13) and order dated 4-11-2003 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C. W. P. No. 19961 of 2002 (Annexure P - 12).
(3.) WE have bestowed our thoughtful consideration on the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept the submission made by him. It is well settled that right to know and access to information is a part of fundamental right under Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The aforementioned view has been reiterated by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, 2006 (8) SCC 212 : AIR 2007 SC 71. The right to information has been read into the fundamental right guaranteed by Art.19(1) (A) and 19(2) which deals with freedom of speech and expressions. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, 2004 (2) SCC 476 : AIR 2004 SC 1442. In para 48 of the judgment the Supreme Court has observed as under : "In keeping with the spirit of the Universal Declaration of 1948, the preamble of the Constitution of India embodies a solemn resolve of its people to secure, inter alia, to its citizens, liberty of thought and expression. In pursuance of this supreme objective, Art.19(1)(a) guarantees to the citizens, the right to "freedom of speech and expression" as one of the fundamental rights listed in Part III of the Constitution. These rights have been advisedly set out in broad terms leaving scope for their expression and adaptation, through interpretation, to the changing needs and evolving notions of a free society." ;