Central Information Commission
Shri J. Shahbudeen vs Cpio, Director Of Postal Services on 18 May, 2006
ORDER
Padma Balasubramanian, I.C. Facts
1. The appellant appeared for a departmental examination in 2005 for recruitment to the cadre of Postman. Since he was not successful, he applied for the mark list from which he found that he had failed in Paper B. He applied for a copy of the evaluated answer sheet of paper B by an application Under Section 6 of the RTI Act on 15.11.2005. He also remitted the prescribed fee on 24.11.2005. The Director of Postal Services, being the CPIO, rejected the application by a decision dated 26.12.2005 stating that no public interest was involved in the case. He also advised the appellant that he could seek for retotalling and verification of the fact that all answers written were duly assessed. Aggrieved with the said decision, he filed an appeal on 4.1.2006 before the Member (Personnel), Department of Posts, New Delhi, who forwarded the said appeal to the Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, being the designated appellate authority on 17.1.2006. By a decision dated 21.2.2006, the appellate authority confirmed the decision of the CPIO that his rejection of the application of the appellant was covered by the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Grounds of appeal
2.In the present appeal, the appellant contends that the CPIO and the appellate authority have wrongly applied the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) to reject the application. A departmental exam conducted for recruitment to a higher post is a public activity and the person who evaluates is required to do it in a fair and legal manner and whether he has done so can be verified only if a copy of the evaluated answer script is furnished. He further contends that denial of the request of the appellant raises a genuine doubt that they have something to hide. Accordingly he has sought for a direction to the CPIO to furnish the information sought and also impose a penalty on the CPIO and award a compensation of Rs.5000 to the appellant.
Commission's Decision
3. Whether a candidate appearing in an examination can seek a copy of the evaluated answer paper under the provisions of the RTI Act has already been decided by this Commission in a few cases, the first being in an appeal from the same postal circle, that too in relation to a departmental examination. In that appeal (Appeal No.ICPB/A-2/CIC/2006 dated 6.2.2006), this Commission decided as follows:
Even though in the present case the appellant examinee is a government servant and the examination is a departmental one, yet the appeal has raised a larger issue as to whether an examinee is entitled to have a copy of his or her evaluated answer paper in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. While the CPIO has rejected the request on the ground that no public interest is involved, the appellate authority has opined that supply of a copy of the evaluated answer paper would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection process. The appellant contends that there is no provision in the Act to deny the information on the ground taken by the CPIO and the appellate authority. It is true that there is no provision in Section 8 of the Act specifically exempting disclosure of information relating to examination papers. Examinations are conducted for various purposes -for admission to educational examinations, for selection and appointment to a post, for promotion to higher class in educational institutions or in a job, as in the present case, etc. When answer papers are evaluated, the authority conducting the examination and the examiners evaluating the answer papers stand in a fiduciary relationship with each other. Such a relationship warrants maintenance of confidentiality by both of the manner and method of evaluation. That is the reason why while mark sheets are made readily available as a matter of course, copies of the evaluated answer papers are not made available to the candidates. Most of the examination conducting authorities, however, comply with the request as in the case of Postal Department, for re-totalling and for verifying whether all the answers have been evaluated. Therefore, we find that in case of evaluated answer papers the information available with the public authority is, in his fiduciary relationship, the disclosure of which is exempt Under Section 8(1)(e). In addition, when a candidate seeks for a copy of the evaluated answer paper, either of his/her own or others, it is purely a personal information, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public interest or activity and this has been covered Under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.
Therefore, we hold that the CPIO was justified in rejecting the request of the appellant for a copy of the evaluated answer paper. We, as a Commission, are not satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought for by the appellant to direct the CPIO to comply with the request of the appellant and as a matter of fact we are of the opinion that furnishing copies of the evaluated answer papers would be against public interest as has been rightly opined by the appellate authority that supply of a copy of the evaluated answer paper would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection process.
4. In view of the above decision and in the absence of any material in the present appeal to persuade me to take a different decision, I uphold the decision taken by the appellate authority and dismiss this appeal.
5. Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.