Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of present writ application, as delineated in the writ applications, are that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Ct/GD held at Ranidanga on 07.12.2002 and was selected by the recruitment Board after passing through written, physical and medical test. But the said recruitment was cancelled by FHQ on the basis of some irregularities in recruitment process, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 06.02.2007. Being aggrieved by such communication, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 2581 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.12.2008 with an observation that since the petitioner has been kept waiting for years without any information with regard to cancellation of his selection; as such a direction was issued to the respondents to give age relaxation for the period counted from the date of advertisement of the post till the date he was informed about the cancellation of selection for the future vacancy. By passage of time, when again advertisement was published for recruitment of Constable (GD) in Employment News dated 24/30.10.2009, the petitioner applied for the same but the respondents found him over-age by 01 years 02 months after giving him age relaxation as directed by this Court and accordingly his candidature was cancelled, which was communicated to the petitioner vide memo dated 23.04.2010. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Cont. Case (Civil) No. 527 of 2010, wherein the contemnor submitted that in compliance of the direction given by this Court age relaxation has been given and for further age relaxation, the Central Government is the competent authority. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding was disposed of vide order dated 13.06.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Secretary, Ministry of Home, Govt. of India. With the liberty aforesaid, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 30.06.2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.10.2011 stating therein that it is not possible to consider age relaxation on a case by case basis, any further age relaxation beyond the direction of Hon'ble High Court will not be possible.
(2.) Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the information under Right to Information Act vide application dated 13.01.2012 as to what was precise ground on which selection was cancelled and sought copy of the preliminary enquiry report, on which, the authority-concerned communicated vide letter dated 15.02.2012 that "It is informed that under Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, SSB is exempted from the provision of the said Act except in cases pertaining to corruption and Human Rights violation is involved in the instant case on the part of the Department." Being dissatisfied with the information given vide letter dated 15.02.2002, the petitioner filed appeal before Central Information Commission on 12.05.2012, during pendency of the present writ application, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2013 observing that no case amounting to corruption is made out. Hence, the appellant (petitioner herein) has been appropriately replied in response to his RTI application.
(3.) In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the petitioner has approached this Court for the following relief: (i).For declaration that Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not prohibit the information pertaining to mass irregularity in selection process leading to cancellation of appointment and is impliedly covered under the definition of 'corruption' as mentioned in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 24A; (ii).For quashing the reasoning as contained in letter dated 15.02.2012 passed by respondent no. 3 with regard to information under RTI Act and also to quash order dated 23.07.2013, the order passed under appeal; (iii).For direction upon the respondents to provide copy of enquiry report basing on which his appointment was cancelled; and (iv).For quashing order dated 05.10.2011 whereby it is alleged that contrary to their own undertaking as given before Hon'ble Court refused to give further age relaxation.;