Central Information Commission
Pramod Kumar Agrawal vs Institute Of Chartered Accoutant Of ... on 24 December, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/ICAOI/A/2019/124164
In the matter of:
Pramod Kumar Agrawal
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
ICAI Bhawan, Indraprastha Marg, New Delhi - 110 002
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 28/01/2019 CPIO replied on : 05/03/2019 First appeal filed on : 14/03/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 16/04/2019 Second Appeal filed on : 16/05/2019 Date of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Date of Decision : 22/12/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Assistant Secretary and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. What are the concessions that are granted to learning disabled candidates appearing in ICAI exams as per provisions of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016, and various amendments, notifications, circulars and judgments of the judiciary thereon?
2. How many learning disabled candidates are appearing for the CA exams across all levels and whether the concessions are granted to them or not?1
3. How many learning disabled candidates have cleared CA Final since 2011?
4. Copy of instructions, training manuals or other documented procedure issued to paper checkers for evaluation of answer sheets of learning disabled candidate. How does a paper checker identify the copies of learning disabled candidate i.e. are there any specific markings on the answer sheets or are they sealed and packaged separately?
5. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the specific information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present at the VC venue despite duly served notice on 03.12.2020 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED500608523IN. However, in his second appeal he had contested that specific information sought under his RTI application paras 2 &3 have not been furnished. He alleged that a vague reply was forwarded to his query. He had sought the information regarding learning disabled candidates whereas CA institute furnished the details of disabled candidates as a whole not for only learning disabled candidates. As such he requested to direct CA institute to provide specific information as requested vide original application. As regards Para No.4 he stated that no special instructions are issued to examiners for evaluating answer books of learning disabled candidates. ln this connection CA institute has not clarified the reasons for discrimination in learning disabled candidate who avail writer facility and those do not availing writer facility. For items no. 5, the information he has demanded is whether the prevailing instructions and concessions comply with Provisions of the Disabiiity Act and various amendments/notifications/circular and judgement of the judiciary, for which no information is furnished. He therefore considered this as denial of information. For ltem No.6 he had requested to know whether any provision for relaxation/concession are extended to the candidates with learning disability appearing for lCAl examination on the lines of that of the University Grant Commission recognized institutions, but there is no concrete information provided. Merely additional time allowed to candidates is mentioned and this information is also out of context and vague.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply dated 05.03.2019 and stated that a suitable reply was already given.
2Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 05.03.2019 had provided a point-wise reply to the appellant. However, the appellant was not satisfied with the reply and had filed a first appeal on 14.03.2019. The FAA vide order dated 16.04.2019 had disposed of the first appeal and concurred with the CPIO's reply observing that available information was given to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Appellant too has not availed of the opportunity to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3