Central Information Commission
Rajesh Kumar vs Banaras Hindu University on 17 December, 2021
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/BANHU/A/2020/686277
Rajesh Kumar ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Banaras Hindu University,
RTI Cell, Varanasi - 221005,
Uttar Pradesh. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/12/2021
Date of Decision : 10/12/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06/03/2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 27/07/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20/09/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.03.2020 seeking the following information:
1. "Provide copy of rules and guidelines for re-evaluation procedure of Answer-sheets of Mid Term and End term exam for courses running under Faculty of Agriculture.
2. Provide the copy of rules and guidelines, if any, for re-evaluation and scrutiny procedure of Practical exam records for courses running under Faculty of Agriculture.
3. What are the charges or fee for re-evaluation of answer sheets?
4. How many students of Plant Biotechnology special course (running under Faculty of Agriculture) of session 2019-20 have been applied for re-
evaluation of their Answer Sheets following the Institute/University rule. Provide name of students."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.07.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Prof. Brajesh Sinha, HOD & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant relied upon his written submissions dated 28.11.2021 wherein it was stated that he has received the information on 19.11.2021 from A.K Ray, Assistant Registrar (Exams) & CPIO but the same is unsatisfactory as contradictory inputs have been provided. On one hand he has been informed that there is no provision of revaluation on the other hand he has been provided with a copy of a resolution no. 19 dated 12.12.2020 prescribing the revaluation procedure which appears to have been framed after the date of filing of the RTI Application. For the same reason, the reply provided to point no.2 of the RTI Application also lacks clarity as per the Appellant. As regards point no.3 of the RTI Application, the Appellant has insisted for disclosure of names of the students.2
Upon a query from the Commission regarding the inordinate delay in replying to the RTI Application, the CPIO submitted that perhaps due to the lockdown period and the difficulties faced at the time in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been some inadvertent omissions in dak handling and management, perhaps why his department or the concerned Controller of Examinations did not receive any such RTI application from the Central Registry of BHU untill the receipt of the hearing notice. He further clarified that revaluation procedure does exist but he was unable to decipher as to why contradictory reply has been provided to the Appellant and agreed to look into it. As for the names of the students, he submitted that this data is held confidentially by the Controller of Examinations and therefore cannot be disclosed.
Decision:
The Commission takes grave exception to the fact that no reply was provided to the RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act. However, the Commission cannot lose sight of the extraordinary circumstances rendered by the COVID-19 pandemic at the time and therefore takes a lenient view in the matter considering the submissions of the CPIO. Nonetheless, the anomaly pertinent in the information now provided to the Appellant is perturbing to note.
In view of the averred anomaly, the CPIO is directed to revisit the RTI Application and adequately liaise with the concerned record holders and provide a consolidated and cogent reply to points 1 & 2 therein to the Appellant incorporating the correct information. The said information shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
As regards point no.3 of the RTI Application, no relief is being ordered in the matter as disclosure of the names of the third parties stands duly exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. 3 Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
With the above observations and s direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4