ORDER : 1. The petitioners two in number being the Public Information Officer and Appellate Authority-2nd petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the decision of the Information Commissioner, Hyderabad under Right to Information Act in Appeal No. 12807/SIC-MVN/2013 dated 11.12.2013, wherein and whereby directed the Divisional Forest Officer, Giddalur to consider appointment of the appellant for the post of Assistant Beat Officer, provided he possesses higher educational qualifications and age when compared with the selected candidate in the relevant category within one month from the date of decision as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Principle Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad had accorded permission by proceedings dated 18.11.2011 to fill up the posts of Assistant Beat Officers. A notification was given directly and through Employment Exchange calling for applications to fill up the posts of Assistant Beat Officers from the eligible and qualified candidates. By Notification dated 26.3.2012, 13 posts of Assistant Beat Officers were permitted to be filled by direct recruitment in Giddalur Division against different roster points. Total 4707 applications were received out of which, 260 candidates are sponsored by District Employment Officer and 4447 applications were received directly. 3. As per G.O.Ms. No. 12 dated 17.2.2012, a Committee was constituted with the following members for recruitment of Assistant Beat Officers in Giddalur Division and as per Circulars dated 26.3.2012 and 28.3.2012: 1. Additional CCF/CF/Guntur Chairman 2. Divisional Forest Officer, Giddalur Member-Convener 3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur Member The selection process comprises of written test and walking test to see the physical endurance of the candidates. The first step and second steps are thus: “First Step: Written test consisting of following three papers: (i) Paper 1 - Essay writing - The examination will be of one hour duration and maximum marks of 20. (ii) Paper 2 - General Knowledge - This examination will be of one and half hour duration and maximum marks of 100. (iii) Paper 3 - General Mathematics - This examination will be of one and half hour duration and maximum marks of 100. (ii) Paper 2 - General Knowledge - This examination will be of one and half hour duration and maximum marks of 100. (iii) Paper 3 - General Mathematics - This examination will be of one and half hour duration and maximum marks of 100. Second Step: The candidates selected in the first step shall be subjected to the test of walking, distance of 25 KM walking is to be completed in 4 hours duration for male candidates and 16 KMs for woman candidates. The walking test is only a physical endurance test and shall not carry any marks. It is treated as a qualifying test.” The Selection Committee had finalized the candidates for walking test as per the written examination in the ratio of 1:2 as per the merit. The same was displayed in the notice board of the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Giddalur and sent intimation cards to the candidates to attend the walking test on 25.2.2013. The finalized list was kept in sealed cover and is opened after completion of the walking test before the Committee. The following candidates were provisionally selected for the post of Assistant Beat Officers against roster points duly observing local/Non-local reservation and other conditions as per rules: S. No. Roster No. of vacancies No. of candidates finally selected Roster point No. Final selected candidates Hall Ticket Nos. 1 OC(G) 4 4 88(GLR) N. Guruswamy (30642) 92(GLR) Syed Imran (30690) 98 (GLR) M. Sunil Kumar (30800) 100(GLR) A. Murali Krishna 2 OC(W) 2 2 90(GLR) K. Subhadra Devi (330637) 96(GLR) N. Roja Ramani (30054) 3 BC-B(G) 1 1 95(GLR) A. Lakshmaiah (30798) The selected candidates’ names were displayed on the notice board and advised the Divisional Forest Officer, Giddalur to issue appointment and posting orders to the selected candidates. Accordingly, appointment and posting orders were issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Giddalur to the selected candidates vide proceedings dated 04.03.2013. 4. The 1st respondent in the writ petition Sri M. Satyanarayana S/o Bakkaiah has applied for the post of Assistant Beat Officer and attended the written examination with Hall Ticket No. PRK30878 on 05.08.2012 at Giddalur and scored 10 marks in Essay writing, 84 marks in General Knowledge and 84 in General Mathematics, total 178 out of 220 marks and he has not been selected. 5. 5. The 1st respondent made application for information under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity “RTI Act 2005”) on 07.02.2013 seeking the following information: “1. How much marks scored by him in Essay writing, General Knowledge and General Mathematics (H. No. PRK30878) and their Xerox copies and OMR sheet and Question paper answer key. 2. How much marks secured by the 39 candidates who are selected for walking test. 3. The selected candidates category and requested their General Knowledge and General Mathematics OMR sheets, essay writing Xerox copies only for OC and BC-D categories in the reference 1st cited.” The 1st respondent also made another application on 11.2.2012 and accordingly, his marks were intimated to him and the marks of other 39 candidates will be supplied to him after receipt of the willingness of the selected candidates but there is no response from the candidates. The marks of the selected candidates for walking test and final list of selected candidates with caste and roster point-wise was intimated to the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent had applied to the Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission, Hyderabad on 20.5.2013 seeking the same information. The Commission issued notice of hearing to the Public Information Officer/Appellate Authority. The 1st respondent sought for information with regard to question papers, essay test particulars of the qualified candidates and RTI Act under Section 4 (1)(b). The full information as requested by the 1st respondent was furnished to him on 02.12.2013 and the same was submitted to the A.P. State Information Commission, Hyderabad on the date of hearing on 11.12.2013, which was acknowledged by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent having not satisfied with the information furnished, requested to correct the answer of the general knowledge mentioning that the question key was wrong and because he put the answer to Question No. 25 as (b) but the answer is shown as (a) in the question key. So, he requested to add two marks in the general knowledge paper and after adding two marks to him, the marks would be raised in the general knowledge to 86 from 84 and adding all the marks obtained in other papers i.e. 84 marks in General Mathematics and 10 marks in Essay writing, the total marks would be 180, which is required for selection of Assistant Beat Officer under BC-D category. Sri D. Brahmam, BC-D selected candidate has secured 180 marks and he wrongly answered Question No. 25 as (a) in the General Knowledge and got two marks to the question, his marks need to be reduced to 178, and he did not possess higher qualifications than the 1st respondent who possess higher qualifications of M.Sc and B.Ed. and is aged about 32 years at the time of selection as Assistant Beat Officer. The State Information Commissioner appears to have exercised his power under Section 20 of the RTI Act and issued the impugned order to compensate the 1st respondent for the loss and other detriment and directed the Public Information Officer to consider the appointment of the 1st respondent for the post of Assistant Beat Officer, provided he possesses higher educational qualification and age when compared with the selected candidate in the relevant category, which is assailed in the writ petition. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Forests would contend that the order impugned is contrary to the provisions of Section 20 of the RTI Act. No proper opportunity was given to the petitioners and contrary to the provisions of Section 20 of RTI Act, the State Information Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction and power and directed the petitioner to appoint the 1st respondent as Assistant Beat Officer by compensating the 1st respondent. He further submits that the 1st respondent was furnished with the information he sought for as per his applications but the State Information Commissioner by way of compensating has directed to appoint the 1st respondent as Assistant Beat Officer. The State Information Commissioner as a measure of punishment can impose costs, if no information is furnished as directed by the Public Information Officer in terms of money which should not exceed Rs. 25,000/- only. The Commissioner has misdirected itself with regard to compensation and directed the petitioners to appoint the 1st respondent as Assistant Beat Officer contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act. 7. Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that on information furnished by the petitioners, the 1st respondent came to know certain discrepancies in valuation of the written test answer papers. He felt that wrong answer was shown to question No. 25 as (b) in question key but the correct answer is (a). 7. Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that on information furnished by the petitioners, the 1st respondent came to know certain discrepancies in valuation of the written test answer papers. He felt that wrong answer was shown to question No. 25 as (b) in question key but the correct answer is (a). So, he requested to add two marks in the General Knowledge paper and after adding two marks to him, the marks would raise to 86 in the General Knowledge and adding 86 marks with 84 marks obtained in General Mathematics and 10 marks obtained in Essay writing, the total marks would be 180 and the candidate Sri M. Brahmam who was selected under BC-D category has secured 180 marks and he answered for question No. 25 as (b) in the General Knowledge, whereas the correct answer would be (a) and thus, two marks are to be deducted and thereby, the total marks secured by the selected candidate would be 178. The 1st respondent is highly qualified with M.Sc. and B.Ed. whereas the selected candidate possesses only 10th class. Sri M. Brahmam got selection but without disturbing his selection, the State Information Commissioner directed the petitioners to consider the case of the 1st respondent for appointment to the post of Assistant Beat Officer, provided he possesses higher educational qualifications and age when compared with the selected candidate in the lower category. The Information Commissioner has passed order exercising its power under the provisions of Clause 20 of the RTI Act. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Information Commissioner, which requires no interference of this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The Indian Parliament legislated RTI Act, 2005 with an object to create right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The 1st respondent submitted an application under Section 6 seeking information. As per the provisions of Section 7, the information was furnished to the 1st respondent. Without any objections, the 1st respondent received all the information sought for. The 1st respondent submitted an application under Section 6 seeking information. As per the provisions of Section 7, the information was furnished to the 1st respondent. Without any objections, the 1st respondent received all the information sought for. If not satisfied with the information furnished and still have a grievance of information furnished, he is having every right to file an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, but instead, the 1st respondent straightaway filed an application before the 2nd respondent State Information Commission. The State Information Commissioner entertained the same contrary to the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 reads thus: 18. Powers and functions of Information Commissions: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person: (a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be. (b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act. (c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under this Act. (d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable. (e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act. (f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act. (2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof. (f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act. (2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof. (3) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely: (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things. (b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents. (c) receiving evidence on affidavit. (d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office. (e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents. (g) any other matter which may be prescribed. (4) Notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other Act of Parliament or State Legislature, as the case may be, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may, during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act, examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the control of the public authority, and no such record may be withheld from it on any grounds. If the 2nd respondent State Information Commission comes to the conclusion that the order passed by him is not implemented in its entirety, then the he can impose penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, by giving opportunity to the Public Information Officer and the appellate authority but without any proper opportunity to the authority and without any valid reasons passed the impugned order exercising the powers under Section 20 of the Act, which is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The 1st respondent’s application before the 2nd respondent asking for information with regard to key and after furnishing the key to the question, he raised dispute with regard to awarding of marks to Question No. 25 and he says that the right answer is (a) and whereas in the key, the answer is given as (b). The 1st respondent’s application before the 2nd respondent asking for information with regard to key and after furnishing the key to the question, he raised dispute with regard to awarding of marks to Question No. 25 and he says that the right answer is (a) and whereas in the key, the answer is given as (b). It appears to be wrong answer but whereas the candidate selected under BC-D Sri D. Brahmam answered the Question No. 25 as (b) and he was awarded two marks for the wrong answer. But without approaching the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, the 1st respondent cannot seek remedy before the 2nd respondent, which is not competent to redress such grievance. This Court finds that the impugned order was passed exceeding the power and jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act. 9. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. 10. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.