Sanjay Kumar vs Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwa Vidyalaya on 13 May, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sanjay Kumar vs Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwa Vidyalaya on 13 May, 2021

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                            बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No : CIC/DHGVV/A/2019/127470

Sanjay Kumar                                            .....अपीलकता /Appellant



                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम


CPIO,
Dr. Harisingh Gaur
Vishwavidyalaya, RTI Cell,
Sagar - 470003, Madhya Pradesh.                    .... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                   :   13/05/2021
Date of Decision                  :   13/05/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on          :   10/01/2018
CPIO replied on                   :   14/11/2018
First appeal filed on             :   04/12/2018
First Appellate Authority order   :   16/01/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   24/04/2019



Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 10.01.2018 seeking information pertaining to PGDYN Exam-2016, including inter-alia as follows-

1. "After revaluation and re-totaling new marksheet.

2. Provide a photocopy of his checked answer sheet for paper foundation of Yoga Therapy PGDYN-101, Roll No-3564391 (PGDYN Exam-2016), Enrollment No. CC/16/3399."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 14.11.2018. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2018. FAA's order dated 16.01.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through audio-conference.

Respondent: Represented by Santosh Sohgaura, Registrar & FAA present through audio-conference.

The Appellant narrated the factual context of RTI application and stated that he is aggrieved by the denial of information by the CPIO ignoring the fact that Appellant is seeking his own re-valuated answer sheet and not of other candidates. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for in the RTI Application.

Rep. of CPIO submitted that as per the extant policy of the University, copy of the re-valuated answer sheet is never provided to the students. He further submitted that this fact was duly informed to the Appellant and also an extract of extant policy was provided to the Appellant. He added that even otherwise as per their record retention schedule, the answer sheets of the students are retained for a period of six months only and now it being 2021, the averred answer sheets have been weeded out by the University.

The Appellant contested that he applied for the revaluation as also for a copy of the answer sheet well within six months time period after his results and therefore, the re-valuated answer sheet should have been provided to him.

Decision:

The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that neither in the CPIO's reply, FAA's order nor during the hearing, any exemption clause of Section 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act was invoked to deny the information as sought for in the instant RTI Application. Moreover, the Rep. of CPIO failed to provide any substantial argument in this regard during the hearing to suggest the applicability of any of the exemption clauses of the RTI Act. The CPIO thus having failed to discharge the onus as prescribed under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act i.e "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request." the denial of the information is not appropriate.

It is also pertinent to note that the information sought for by the Appellant concerns a copy of his own re-valuated answer sheet which ought to have been be provided to him as a information seeker. However, the Rep. of CPIO mentioned during the hearing that records have been weeded out as per their record retention policy, but the fact still remains that when the instant RTI Application was filed by the Appellant, the records of information sought were very much available with the Respondent public authority. Thus, the Commission is baffled with the conduct of CPIO in dealing with RTI matters in a careless manner and issues a strict warning to him to exercise due diligence while disposing the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

Nevertheless, the clarification given by the Rep. of CPIO that as per the extant policy of the University, copies of the re-valuated answer sheets are never provided to the candidates/students on request, does not appear to be appropriate, fair and justifiable in the eyes of law. Therefore, a copy of this order is marked to the Vice Chancellor, of the University Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya to re-look into the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / (copy marked for adverse remarks of the Commission) To The Vice Chancellor, Dr. Harisingh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya,Sagar (M.P.) 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission