Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Public Service Commission vs Smt Lalitha Bai K on 14 September, 2012
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
Writ Petition No.11043 OF 2008 (GM-RES)
C/w
Writ Petition No.13981 OF 2009 (GM-RES)
Writ Petition No.15893 OF 2009 (GM-RES)
Writ Petition No.15890 OF 2009 (GM-RES)
Writ Petition No.15891 OF 2009 (GM-RES)
Writ Petition No.15892 OF 2009 (GM-RES)
Writ Petition No.29681 OF 2009 (GM-RES)
Writ Petition No.35367 OF 2010 (GM-RES)
IN W.P No.11043/2008
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Public Service Commission
Rep by its Secretary
Udyoga Soudha, Bangalore-01. ..Petitioner
(By Sri Reuben Jacob, Adv.,)
AND :
1. Smt. Lalitha Bai K
No.A.26/1, KPWD Quarters
Jeevanbheema Nagar
Bangalore-560 075.
2
2. State Chief Information Commissioner
Karnataka Information Commission
M.S. Building, Bangalore-01. ..Respondents
(By Smt. H.R. Renuka, Adv., for R1;
Sri N.B. Vishwanath, AGA., for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
29.5.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent Commission vide
Annexure-A.
IN W.P No.13981/2009
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Public Service Commission
Rep by its Secretary
Udyoga Soudha, Bangalore-01. ..Petitioner
(By Sri Reuben Jacob, Adv.,)
AND :
1. M.P. Narasimhan
No.17, 5th Cross
Swimming Pool Extension
Malleshwaram
Bangalore-560 003.
2. Karnataka State Information Commissioner
Karnataka Information Commission
Gate No.2, III Floor
M.S. Building, Bangalore-01. ..Respondents
(By Sri N.B. Vishwanath, AGA., for R2)
3
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
13.2.2009 passed by the R2 as per Annexure-F.
IN W.P No.15893/2009
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Public Service Commission
Rep by its Secretary
Udyoga Soudha, Bangalore-01. ..Petitioner
(By Sri Reuben Jacob, Adv.,)
AND :
1. Rajashekara Bhujanga
No.610, Vijay Tower
II Main Road, Hampinagar
(R.P.C.Layout) Vijayanagar
Second Stage, Bangalore-40.
2. Karnataka State Information Commissioner
Karnataka Information Commission
Gate No.2, III Floor
M.S. Building, Bangalore-01. ..Respondents
(By Sri N.B. Vishwanath, AGA., for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
18.12.2008 passed by the R2 as per Annexure-E.
4
IN W.P No.15890/2009
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Public Service Commission
Rep by its Secretary
Udyoga Soudha, Bangalore-01. ..Petitioner
(By Sri R. Gunashekar, Adv.,)
AND :
1. Maningappa S. Bajenthri
S/o Shivappa Bajenthri
Asst. Engineer, O/o the AEE
MR BCC Sub-Division
No.11, Bylahatti, Hubli Taluk
Dharwad District.
2. Karnataka State Information Commissioner
Karnataka Information Commission
Gate No.2, III Floor
M.S. Building, Bangalore-01. ..Respondents
(By Sri B.B. Bajentri, Adv., for C/R1;
Sri N.B. Vishwanath, AGA., for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
13.2.2009 passed by the R2 as per Annexure-H.
5
IN W.P No.15891/2009
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Public Service Commission
Rep by its Secretary
Udyoga Soudha, Bangalore-01. ..Petitioner
(By Sri Reuben Jacob, Adv.,)
AND :
1. Ellisa Andrews
Age Major
S/o V. Andrews
Kiran Apartments
Near Devamatha School
Horamavu Main Road
Kalyananagar Post
Bangalore.
2. Karnataka State Information Commissioner
Karnataka Information Commission
Gate No.2, III Floor
M.S. Building, Bangalore-01.
Rep by the Commissioner. ..Respondents
(By M/s. R.A. Associates, Adv., for R1;
Sri N.B. Vishwanath, AGA., for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the common
order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the R2 in KIC 220 APL
2007 and No.KIC 435 APL 2007 as per Annexure-L.
6
IN W.P No.15892/2009
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Public Service Commission
Rep by its Secretary
Udyoga Soudha, Bangalore-01. ..Petitioner
(By Sri Reuben Jacob, Adv.,)
AND :
1. V. Prakash
Senior Assistant
Horticulture Department
M.S. Building, IV Floor
Room No.422
Bangalore-560 001.
2. Karnataka State Information Commissioner
Karnataka Information Commission
Gate No.2, III Floor
M.S. Building, Bangalore-01.
Rep by the Commissioner. ..Respondents
(By Sri N.B. Vishwanath, AGA., for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
9.4.2009 passed by the R2 as per Annexure-F.
7
IN W.P No.29681/2009
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Public Service Commission
Rep by its Secretary
Udyoga Soudha, Bangalore-01. ..Petitioner
(By Sri Reuben Jacob, Adv.,)
AND :
1. Smt. Srilakshmi
Age Major
D/o G. Sudarshan
No.4-4-223/171
Sathyanatha Colony
Raichur-584103
Raichur District.
2. Karnataka State Information Commissioner
Gate No.2, III Floor
M.S. Building, Bangalore-01.
Rep by the Commissioner. ..Respondents
(By Sri N.B. Vishwanath, AGA., for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
5.8.2009 passed by the R2 as per Annexure-E.
IN W.P No.35367/2010
BETWEEN:
Sri E. Ramamurthy
Age 42 years
8
S/o Eramallappa
R/o Kyadigunte Village
Siddeshwaranadurga Post
Challakere Taluk
Chitradurga District. ..Petitioner
(By Sri K. Sreedhar, Adv.,)
AND :
1. Karnataka Public Service Commission
Rep by its Secretary
Udyoga Soudha, Bangalore-01.
2. The Assistant Secretary and
Public Information Officer
Examination Section-1
K.P.S.C., Bangalore.
3. The Deputy Secretary and the
First Appellate Authority
Karnataka Public Service Commission
Udyoga Soudha, Bangalore-01. ..Respondents
(By Sri Reuben Jacob, Adv.,)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
7.5.2010 vide Annexure-E passed by the third respondent.
These writ petitions coming on for final hearing this
day, the Court made the following.
9
ORDER
Order in W.P. No.11043/2008, W.P. 15890/2009, W.P. 15891/2009, W.P. 15892/2009, W.P. 29681/2009 In all these matters, the petitioner - Karnataka Public Service Commission ('KPSC' for short) has sought for quashing the orders passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner by which State Chief Information Commissioner has directed the petitioner - KPSC to furnish copies of the answer scripts of the private respondents herein.
2. The records reveal that the private respondents in all these matters have written certain examinations conducted by KPSC. The results were announced. However, the private respondents in these matters filed applications before the KPSC to get the copies of the answer scripts for verification. The same has been negatived. Ultimately, the private respondents in all these matters approached State Chief Information Commissioner 10 by lodging the complaints under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act' for short) with a prayer that they should be furnished the copies of their answer scripts. The said appeals were allowed and the petitioner - KPSC was directed by the State Chief Information Commissioner to furnish the answer scripts of the private respondents herein.
3. The question as to whether the information as sought for by the private respondents should be furnished by the KPSC or not is no more res integra inasmuch as the said question is fully covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANOTHER -vs- ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY AND OTHERS reported in (2011)8 SCC 497. In the said decision, the Apex Court has observed thus:
"26. The examining bodies (universities, Examination Boards, CBSE etc.,) are neither intelligence nor security organisations and 11 therefore the exemption under Section 24 will not apply to them. The disclosure of information with reference to answer books does not also involve infringement of any copyright and therefore Section 9 will not apply. Resultantly, unless the examining bodies are able to demonstrate that the evaluated answer books fall under any of the categories of exempted "information" enumerated in clauses (a) to (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8, they will be bound to provide access to the information and any applicant can either inspect the document/record, take notes, extracts or obtain certified copies thereof.
27. The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer books are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as they are "information" held in its fiduciary relationship. They fairly conceded that evaluated answer books will not fall under any other exemptions in sub-section (1) of Section 8. Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer books, by either inspecting 12 them or take certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer books are found to be exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
36. Section 22 of the RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye- laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer books fall under the exempted category of information described in clause (e) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer books, even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under the rules/bye-laws of the examining body governing the examinations. Therefore, the decision of this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education -vs- Paritosh Bhupeshkuamr 13 Sheth - (1984)4 SCC 27 and the subsequent decisions following the same, will not affect or interfere with the right of the examinee seeking inspection of the answer books or taking certified copies thereof. "
Thus it is clear from the aforementioned observations of the Supreme Court that despite the absence of rule compelling the KPSC to provide the answer scripts, the examinees are entitled to copies of the answer scripts under the provisions of the RTI Act. In this view of the matter, the State Chief Information Commissioner is justified in directing the petitioner - KPSC to provide copies of the answer scripts of the private respondents.
Accordingly, the impugned orders need to be confirmed. Hence W .P. No.11043/2008, W.P. 15890/2009, W.P. 15891/2009 and W.P. 15892/2009 are dismissed. 14
For the very reasons mentioned supra, W.P. No.29681/2009 is also dismissed and consequently the order passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner directing the KPSC to provide marks card of the petitioner in W.P. No.29681/2009 stands confirmed.
ORDER IN W.P. No.13981/2009, W.P. 15893/2009 The private respondents in these matters have sought for answer scripts of third parties. The aforementioned dictum of the Apex Court may not be applicable to these two matters. In the aforementioned judgment, the Apex Court has ruled that the examinee has got right to inspect his/her evaluated answer scripts or take certified copies thereof. The Apex Court has not ruled that any examinee is entitled to get the evaluated answer scripts of the third parties or for taking certified copies of the answer scripts of the third parties. Hence the impugned orders directing the petitioner - KPSC to provide certified copies of answer 15 scripts of the third parties etc., to the private respondents herein cannot be sustained.
It is to be noted that in W.P. No.13981/2009, the private respondent has sought for the name and particulars of the person who sets the question papers etc., in addition to the copies of answer scripts of the third parties. The name of the question paper settler cannot be disclosed in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANOTHER cited supra. The name of the question paper settler as well as the names of the examiners who evaluated the answer scripts cannot be disclosed as such information is exempted, particularly in view of the fact that the secrecy of such information has to be maintained in the interest of the examinees and the safety of the question paper settler as well as examiners.
16
Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. W.P. No.13981/2009 c/w W.P. 15893/2009 are allowed. Order in W.P. No.35367/2010
In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 7.5.2010 vide Annexure-E passed by the 3rd respondent - Karnataka Public Service Commissioner/first appellate authority under the provisions of the RTI Act.
The petitioner applied for providing xerox copies of all the answer scripts written by him to the post in question on 15.2.2010 to the Assistant Secretary, Exams Section-1 of KPSC under the provisions of the RTI Act. The said authority issued an Endorsement on 2.3.2010 stating that it cannot provide the information sought for in view of Section 8(1)(e)(g) and (j) of the RTI Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the RTI Act, which came to be dismissed as per Annexure-E dated 7.5.2010 on the ground 17 that the KPSC cannot provide information as sought for inasmuch as the rules of KPSC do not provide for grant of xerox copies/certified copies of the answer scripts of the examinee.
The question involved in this writ petiton is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court cited supra. For the very reasons assigned in W .P. No.11043/2008, W.P. 15890/2009, W.P. 15891/2009, W.P. 15892/2009 and W.P. 29681/2009, this writ petiton needs to be allowed and the order of the KPSC needs to be set aside. As held by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment, the petitioner is entitled to answer scripts.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The KPSC is directed to furnish copies of answer scripts of the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE gss/-