Central Information Commission
Vijay Kumar vs National Institute Of Design, Andhra ... on 10 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
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/NIDAP/A/2022/658561
Vijay Kumar ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Institute of Design (NID),
Andhra Pradesh, RTI Cell, EEE
Building, Acharya Nagarjuna University,
Nagarjuna Nagar, Namburu, Guntur,
Andhra Pradesh-522510 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/07/2023
Date of Decision : 03/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01/09/2022
CPIO replied on : 22/09/2022
First appeal filed on : 05/10/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 02/11/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03/11/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.09.2022 seeking the following information:1
"1. Copy of Question booklet cum answer sheet and answer key for the post of AO recruitment exam held on 01.09.2022.
2. Copy of score sheet prepared to provisionally shortlist candidates for interview on 02.09.2022."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 22.09.2022 stating as under:
"1. The question paper is a part of question bank, and these papers are limited in number. Disclosure of such question papers will be counterproductive for future use of the same questions and in turn it may give undue advantage to some candidates who apply for the said post subsequently in terms of section (1)d of RTI Act 2005.
2. The notice Ref: F. No. NIDAP/Admin/124/ 2022 dated 01/09/2022 (copy enclosed) was uploaded to a website providing details of provisionally shortlisted candidates for interview. The disclosure of the rest of the information sought would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005 and hence exempted. However, it is informed the minimum cut-off criteria required for being eligible for interview is 50."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.10.2022. FAA's order, dated 02.11.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO, however the marks obtained by the applicant in the written exam are as follows:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.2
Respondent: Dharma Rao, Scientist C & CPIO present through present through video-conference.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply on the following arguments -
"...CPIO as well as the First Appellate Authority of MD AR It is to add here that undersigned was an eligible candidate for the post of Administrative Officer and has asked the said information in the light of landmark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court "CBSE v/s Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.
In view of the above, I am requesting to the hon'ble commission to kindly instruct the concern authority to provide me the information sought under RTI Act'2005 and panelize the concern/s for taking RTI Act'2005 so casually under the provision of RTI Act'2005."
While summing up his arguments, the Appellant restricted his arguments to the fact that a copy of the Question booklet cum answer sheet and answer key for the post of AO recruitment exam held on 01.09.2022 as sought for at point no. 1 of the RTI application should be provided by the CPIO in order to check the veracity of question/answers attempted by him.
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO reiterated the contents of his reply and further invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 26.06.2023, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below for ready reference -
"....the National Institute of Design Andhra Pradesh is an Institute of National Importance established under Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry c Commerce & Industry, Government of India for imparting design education and not a dedicated examination body like C.B.S.E., UPSC, SSC, Railway Recruitment Board or Institute of Banking Personnel Selection. I conducts selection tests only for filling its sanctioned posts taking inputs from external experts, internal team based on the domain and relevant job knowledge required for the posts and the aptitude and descriptive question papers (scenario based) are reused in different examinations conducted by National Institute of Design, Andhra Pradesh repeatedly and disclosure of the question papers would adversely affect the abilities of the institute to use the aptitude and descriptive question papers in future examinations. It is further submitted that prejudiced if 3 such information is disclosed. Additionally, it is informed that the Institute is one among the newly formed Institute of National importance in design field and is filling the initial sanctioned posts am this exercise is repeated in frequent intervals to complete the recruitment process. It is also submitted that setting up of such question papers besides intellectual efforts also entails expenditure.
It is further submitted that even the copies of the question papers of the written examinations are not being provided to the candidates after completion of the said examination, since the number of questions were limited and the same are also used in forthcoming tests. The question whether an examining body can be asked to disclose the question papers in circumstances where the number of questions are limited and arc repeated, has been considered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri MSF Beig: W.P.(C) No.272/2012 decided on 20.11.2014 and it has been held that in such cases, the examining body cannot be compelled to disclose the question papers.
The RTI applicant himself was one of the candidates for the said post for which the question booklet-cum-Answer sheet has been sought for upon being not qualified in the written test which is essential for appearing in the interview for selection to the said post. The document is sought purely for personal benefit and there is no public interest involved in seeking such document and larger public interest doesn't warrant the desired disclosure. Moreover, the judgment relied by the appellant in the case of CBSE v/s Aditya Bandopadhyay & others is all about re- evaluation process of examination and hence cannot be blindly applied to the facts of the present case.
However, in light of maximum completion of recruitment exercise towards filling up of initial sanctioned posts, the Institute is in the process of consolidating the questions so far used for the written examinations in a generic form i.e., in a question bank format without any reference to the date of examination and post for which it was held and is in the process of disseminating the same in the Institute website once the recruitment to the initially sanctioned posts is over. Recently, Institute was in receipt of one RTI seeking all the questions papers being used by the Institute in written examination for all administrative and technical posts for which it was replied stating that the consolidation of questions and answers for various administrative posts recruited so far are under process and the question bank shall be disseminated to the extent possible in the Institute website in due course. It is submitted before Hon'ble Information Commissioner that the said exercise is in progress and the same shall be disseminated in near 4 future which may serve common benefit to all the potential job aspirants and thus the present appeal may be considered for rejection as the disclosure of the question bank to impractical demands under RTI unrelated to 'transparency' and 'accountability' would be counterproductive and will jeopardize the validity/value of process of selection of candidates notwithstanding the fiscal and operational burden. It is a practical impossibility to get generate that number of questions of good quality every year to replenish the question bank."
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties observes that the Appellant has restricted his claim for information to the disclosure of question booklet which has been denied by the CPIO on the ground that "The question paper is a part of question bank, and these papers are limited in number. Disclosure of such question papers will be counterproductive for future use of the same questions and in turn it may give undue advantage to some candidates who apply for the said post subsequently in terms of section (1)d of RTI Act 2005."
Here, the Commission would like to recall its earlier decision on the similar issue of limited question bank of another Appellant which has been heard and disposed of by the bench on 16.02.2023 vide case file no. CIC/IOCLD/A/2022/623095 with the following observations -
"....Now, as regards, point no.4 of the RTI Application and the grounds of denial of the information by the CPIO & FAA as well as the arguments of the Appellant in favour of disclosure as gathered from the grounds of the Second Appeal, the Commission places reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Ministry of Railways v. K.G. Arun Kumar, (W.P.(C) No. 2173 of 2013) wherein the following was observed and held:
"...The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that psychological tests are designed to test the mental aptitude for safety category staff necessary for safety on the Indian Railways. It was further submitted that the aptitude tests, question papers and the OMR sheets are reused in different examinations conducted by Railway Recruitment Board and a disclosure of the aptitude question papers would effectively destroy the ability of the petitioner to use the aptitude question papers in future examinations. It is further submitted that it takes several years to design an aptitude test and the petitioner would be prejudiced if the respondent is provided such information.5
It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the copies of the question papers of the written examinations ought not be provided since the number of questions were limited and the same are also used in different tests. The controversy whether an examining body can be asked to disclose the question papers in circumstances where the number of questions are limited and are repeated, has been considered by this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri MSF Beig: W.P.(C) No.272/2012 decided on 20.11.2014 and it has been held that in such cases, the examining body cannot be compelled to disclose the question papers.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the CIC's order directing the petitioner to provide copy of question papers or provide OMR sheets is rejected...."
Now, taking reference of the judgment of the same Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri MSF Beig, (W.P.(C) No.272/2012), the following relevant portion is extracted:
"7. The exam conducted by NIA is essentially an exam for evaluating the candidates for promotion and to test their proficiency of the knowledge of the industry and the work involved.
8. I am inclined to accept that since the promotional exam is in a nature of trade test, the questions would be limited. In these circumstances, a disclosure of question papers along with the answer key (model answers) would inevitably place the entire question bank in public domain and thus, effectively reduce the efficacy of the tests."
Another precedent, although the ratio is not squarely applicable given the distinguishable nature of the examination under question in both the cases, but the Commission finds it expedient to refer to a routinely relied upon decision of the division bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of All India Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Vikrant Bhuria, (LPA 487/2011) dated 28.05.2012 wherein the issue of disclosure of question papers finding its source from a limited question bank vis-à-vis the right to information was determined in a detailed manner as under:
"16........... if question papers are so disclosed, the possibility of the examination not resulting in the selection of the best candidate cannot be ruled out. It is pleaded that knowledge of the question papers of all the previous years with correct answers may lead to selection of a student with good memory rather 6 than an analytical mind. It is also pleaded that setting up of such question papers besides intellectual efforts also entails expenditure. The possibility of appellant, in a given year cutting the said expenditure by picking up questions from its question bank is thus plausible and which factor was considered by the Supreme Court also in the judgment aforesaid.
17. We also need to remind ourselves of the line of the judgments of which reference may only be made to State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shyam Sunder AIR 2011 SC 3470, The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970) 1 SCC 648, The University of Mysore Vs. C. D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh kumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27 holding that the Courts should not interfere with such decisions of the academic authorities who are experts in their field. Once the experts of the appellant have taken a view that the disclosure of the question papers would compromise the selection process, we cannot lightly interfere therewith. Reference in this regard may also be made to the recent dicta in Sanchit Bansal Vs. The Joint Admission Board (JAB) (2012) 1 SCC 157 observing that the process of evaluation and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field and Courts will not interfere in such processes. (Emphasis Supplied)
18. We have in our judgment dated 24.05.2012 in LPA No.1090/2011 titled Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Sh. Anil Kumar Kathpal, relying on the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 held that in achieving the objective of transparency and accountability of the RTI Act, other equally important public interests including preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information are not to be ignored or sacrificed and that it has to be ensured that revelation of information in actual practice, does not harm or adversely affect other public interests including of preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. Thus, disclosure of, marks which though existed, but were replaced by grades, was not allowed. Purposive, not literal interpretation of the RTI Act was advocated."
Now, to answer the implied contention of the Appellant stemming from his reliance on the Commission's earlier decision in File No. CIC/YA/A/2015/000014 wherein the inapplicability of Vikrant Bhuria judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on disclosure of a non-super specialty exam related question bank was concerned , it was observed, that the decision of the same Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Prakash Singh, W.P.(C) 8916/2011, decided on 06.12.2012 bears relevance and lends perspective. It was held as under:-
7"I am of the view that while, undoubtedly, the examination qua which information was being sought in All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Vikrant Bhuria case pertains to a super specialty course, where seats were limited, that by itself did not form the basis of the conclusion reached by the Division Bench. The view taken by the Division Bench is based on the fact that there is limited number of questions available to the petitioner, and that if, this information is put out in public domain then, it would be difficult for the petitioners to select candidates on the basis of their analytical ability. In other words, the examinee may perhaps take to the rote route to qualify the examination. (Emphasis Supplied) The Division Bench has also observed that they would be loathe to interfere in areas where academicians, being experts, have expressed a view, to the effect that, disclosure of question papers and keys would compromise the selection process."
Adverting to the catena of judgments as above, the underlying principle appears to be the factum of a "limited question bank" argument bearing weight rather than restricting the discussion to the modalities of speciality or super speciality exams.
Having observed as above, the Commission finds the denial of the information on point no.4 of the RTI Application to be justified and bringing it under the exemption of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act by the CPIO does not appear to be out of place, therefore no relief can be ordered in the matter."
Considering the applicability of the ratio of the above mentioned decision, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding disclosure of question booklet of his own is no more res integra.
In view of the foregoing, no further relief can be granted in the matter and the submissions of the CPIO are upheld.
However, in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submission free of cost with the Appellant through email and via speed post immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 8 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 9