1 2026:CGHC:19769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2035 of 2026 1 - Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Chotu Ram Sahu, Aged About 33 Years Teacher At Government Higher Secondary School -Kerju, Block Sitapur, District- Sarguja C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - District Education, Officer, Cum-1st Appellate Authority, Public Information Officer District Sarguja C.G. 4 - Block Education Officer Cum, -Public Information Officer Block Sitapur, District- Sarguja C.G. 5 - Principal, Government High School Kerju Block Sitapur, District Sarguja C.G. 6 - Pardeep Kumar Village Kotiya, Post Navagarh, District -Janjgir Chmapa C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents State not to disclose the personal details/documents of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a blanket order under the "John Doe" Injunction Gamle restraining the known persons i.e. the private respondents and the unknown persons, thereby mandating not to provide the personal details of the petitioner to private respondents for the purpose of publishing the same in the newspaper and other form of print media and mass communication. 10.3 Any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the Petitioner in the ends of justice & equity.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was earlier posted as Lecturer (Panchayat) at Government Higher Secondary School, Khamariya, Block Udaypur, District Surguja (C.G.), and was subsequently transferred vide order dated 06.06.2025 issued by the Under Secretary, School Education Department, to 3 Government High School, Keraju, Block Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.). Thereafter, a private respondent, namely Pradeep Kumar, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Public Information Officer of the said school seeking various personal details of the petitioner, including educational qualifications (10th, 12th, graduation, post-graduation), appointment order, Aadhaar card, PAN card, service records, and training details; that the said information was initially declined by the Public Information Officer, however, the private respondent preferred an appeal before the District Education Officer on 20.02.2026, and by order dated 10.04.2026, the District Education Officer directed the concerned Principal to furnish the said information. The petitioner contends that the information sought pertains to his personal details and is protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which exempts disclosure of personal information having no nexus with public activity or interest; that despite such statutory protection and pendency of similar issues, the respondent authorities have proceeded to direct disclosure, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information sought by the private respondent is purely personal in nature and falls squarely within the exemption provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as its disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of the petitioner’s privacy and 4 has no relation to any public activity or larger public interest; it is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girish R. Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & Others (SLP (C) No. 27734/2012) has clearly held that service-related and personal information of an employee is protected and cannot ordinarily be disclosed under the RTI Act; it is contended that the appellate authority has erred in directing disclosure without considering the statutory bar and settled legal position; it is also submitted that in a similar matter, this Hon’ble Court in WPC No. 6125/2025 (Lakheshwar Prasad Rajwade vs. State of Chhattisgarh) vide order dated 19.12.2025 has granted interim protection restraining disclosure of such personal information; it is further urged that the petitioner apprehends that certain individuals, including media persons, are seeking such information with an oblique motive to misuse and publish the same, thereby causing harassment and damage to the petitioner’s reputation, and therefore the petitioner seeks protection, including issuance of appropriate directions or a “John Doe” order against unknown persons who may misuse such information; it is thus prayed that the impugned direction for disclosure be set aside and the respondent authorities be restrained from furnishing the petitioner’s personal information in violation of law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under the provisions of law for redressal of his 5 grievance, and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage and does not warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the State that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the law, it is deemed appropriate to direct the petitioner to avail such remedy by initiating appropriate proceedings before the competent forum in accordance with law. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat