Central Information Commission
Gaurav Goel vs University Of Delhi on 29 May, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
कें द्रीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुननरका, नई दिल्ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/UODEL/C/2019/643848+643877+643879 &
CIC/UODEL/A/2020/661648+661658+661660/03610
File no.: CIC/UODEL/C/2019/643848+643877+643879 &
CIC/UODEL/A/2020/661648+661658+661660
In the matter of:
Gaurav Goel
...Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
University of Delhi
Administrative Block, Delhi - 110 007
...Respondent
Date of hearing : 29.05.2020
Date of decision : 29.05.2020
File Nos. RTI application CPIO First Appeal FAA's Second
filed on replied on filed on/online Order on Appeal
registration no. Dated
643848 08.03.2019 03.04.2019 UODEL/A/2019 Not on 26.06.2019
/60105 record
643877 08.03.2019 09.04.2019 UODEL/R/2019 Not on 25.06.2019
/60106 record
643879 08.03.2019 05.04.2019 UODEL/R/2019 Not on 25.06.2019
/50276 record
661648 08.03.2019 03.04.2019 15.05.2019 28.06.2019 27.01.2020
661658 08.03.2019 09.04.2019 16.05.2019 28.06.2019 27.01.2020
661660 08.03.2019 05.04.2019 16.05.2019 28.06.2019 27.01.2020
1
Note: The above listed cases of the appellant have been clubbed together, as these are RTI applications involving similar issues. For the sake of brevity, cases were clubbed and adjudicated by a common order. The hearing too was conducted in a similar fashion.
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over phone Respondent: Ms Meenakshi Sahay, Deputy Registrar & CPIO, heard over phone.
Information Sought:
CIC/UODEL/C/2019/683848 & CIC/UODEL/A/2020/661648 The appellant (Examination Roll No. 405529) appeared as an ex-student for the sixth semester examination of B.Sc (H) Computer Science, in 2013. He wants the copy of his answer sheet of the paper Code- 604 (Operational Research Techniques).
CIC/UODEL/C/2019/643877 & CIC/UODEL/A/2020/661658 The appellant (Examination Roll No. 405529) appeared as an ex-student for the sixth semester examination of B.Sc (H) Computer Science, in 2013. He wants the copy of his answer sheet of the paper Code- 601 (Theory of Computation).
CIC/UODEL/C/2019/643879 & CIC/UODEL/A/2020/661660 The appellant (Examination Roll No. 405529) appeared as an ex-student for the sixth semester examination of B.Sc (H) Computer Science, in 2013. He wants the copy of his answer sheet of the paper Code- 602 (Networks Programming and Administration).
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he has received a reply from the respondent authority wherein he was informed that the records have been weeded out. He stated that even if the records were weeded out, at least the photocopy of the first page of the answer sheet may be provided to him so that he can check the totalling of the marks given to him and a digital copy of the first page of the answer sheet may also be supplied.2
During the hearing, the appellant raised several issues and asked multiple questions from the CPIO in connection with his RTI application. He asked whether there is any provision followed by the University for digitizing the first page of every answer sheet. To this the CPIO submitted that since answer papers do not come under the category of permanent records, no digitization is done even of the first page. Secondly, the appellant asked whether the top sheet of the answer script where marks are awarded against each question and in total also are collated anywhere. Thereafter, he asked whether there is any provision of re-evaluating the answer script if any student firmly believes that some of his answers have not been marked at all. For both these question, the appellant was informed that once answer scripts are weeded out as per the policy, none of these questions are valid as no record whatsoever is maintained or retained beyond the period laid down for weeding out.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 05.04.2019 based on the inputs received from the Examination Department who was the custodian of the desired information. The appellant was suggested to verify the official website of the University for the schedule of re-
evaluation and rechecking facility, according to which, the appellant has to pay Rs.750/- for rechecking each of his answer sheets within 15 days from the date of declaration of results on their official website. The weeding out rules of the university says that the student has to apply for a copy of answer scripts between the 61st to the 75th day of uploading the results on the University website and a copy of the same was given to the appellant. She further submitted that in compliance with the FAA order, the deemed PIO has given an additional reply on 15.07.2019 while stating that the Examination Branch, SDC, University of Delhi has already weeded out the answer scripts for the years from 2013 to May/June, 2018 as per the University weeding rules. It was also informed that the Examination Branch, South Campus, University of Delhi does not maintain the digital records of Answer Scripts. Hence, the question of providing copies of answer sheets do not arise.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved as the copies of the answer sheets were not provided to him. In this regard, the Commission observed that the appellant has sought the copies of such answer sheets regarding the examination that was conducted in the 3 year 2013 as admitted by the appellant himself in his RTI application and he had filed the above mentioned RTI applications in the year 2019 i.e. after 06 years of the conduct of the examination. The CPIO submitted that according to the Rules of the University, the students are supposed to apply for copies of the answer sheets within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result and according to the University's retention policy, the answer sheets are retained for three months only, from the date of declaration of result. If the student fails to apply within the prescribed period, the answer sheets are weeded out as per the existing weeding out policy and hence the answer sheets which are no longer available with the University cannot be given to the student as had happened in this case. The Commission finds the justification of the CPIO reasonable as the examination was conducted in the year 2013 and the RTI application was filed in the year 2019 i.e. after a gap of 06 long years. The appellant was also not able to convince the Commission as to what compelling reasons prevented him from filing the RTI application immediately after the examination was over and if he was confident enough that he had performed well in the exams and less marks were awarded to him, he could have filed the RTI application immediately after the declaration of the results which was not done. Even if the reasons of the appellant are convincing, however, the respondent authority was well within its authority to weed out the records as per the Record Retention policy followed by them. Under such circumstances, the Commission is unable to find any flaw in the reply of the CPIO. The CPIO cannot provide information which is not available as the respondent authority is expected to receive the RTI applications and provide the information/answer sheets until such time that the records have not been weeded out as per their policy. Once they have weeded out the records, then there is a reasonable justification for denying the information to the appellant, as the same was not held by them and for this they cannot be answerable. Hence, no relief can be given to the appellant. However, considering the fact that the appellant was very anxious to know if there is any other way which would help him in getting his problem fixed, an opportunity was given to him to enquire from the CPIO any relevant questions which were adequately replied to by the CPIO. Therefore, no further intervention is warranted in the matter. Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for intervention in all the matters heard today as per the list mentioned above.4
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित सत्यानित प्रनत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिनांक / Date 5