Central Information Commission
K Kalimuthu vs Department Of Posts on 7 December, 2020
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/600030
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2019/600030
In the matter of:
K Kalimuthu ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
/Director ACAO Computer
(LDCE AAO-2018),
Department of Posts,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 06.10.2018 FA : 10.11.2018 SA : 02.01.2019
CPIO : 06.11.2018 FAO : 19.12.2018 Hearing : 04.12.2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri K. Kalimuthu participated in the hearing through video
conferencing from NIC Chennai.
Respondent: Shri Pardeep Mehlawat, CPIO/ADG participated in the hearing on
being contacted on his telephone.
Page 1 of 5
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/600030
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 06.10.2018 seeking the following information:
"In AAO LDCE 2018 exam conducted from 5th July to 8th July 2018, My Roll No. 1112808. Name K. Kalimuthu. Kindly supply photocopies of my corrected answer sheets of Paper I, II, III, IV, V & VI along with 6 papers my marks to my email id [email protected] and as well as to my address mentioned in this application".
The CPIO vide letter dated 06.11.2018 informed the Appellant that answer sheets cannot be revealed as per Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the matter of UPSC vs Angesh Kumar in Civil Appeal No(s). 6159-6162 of 2013. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.11.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.12.2018 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent public authority. He further stated that the Commission in its earlier order vide File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2017/157969-BJ decided on 20.11.2018 with regard to photocopies of revaluated answer sheets had ordered inspection of records to the Appellant therein and alleged that the Respondent public authority are not following the extant guidelines of the Department of Posts. He referred to Page 2 of 5 CIC/POSTS/A/2019/600030 the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE and Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. wherein it was held that every examinee have the right to access his evaluated answer-books by either inspecting them or taking certified copy thereof unless the same is exempted under Section 8 of the Act. He alleged that the Respondent has not even communicated his marks on official terms. Upon being queried as to whether the written submission dated 17.11.2020 has been received by him or not, the Appellant replied in negative.
The Respondent submitted that on 17.11.2020 point-wise information has been provided to the Appellant through ordinary post.
The Appellant interjected to state that the method opted by the Respondent in communicating the replies in RTI matters is not a conventional method because as per the existing rules, all communications/correspondences under RTI Act are to be sent through speed/registered post only.
A written submission dated 17.11.2020 filed by Shri Kunal Srivastava, CPIO and Asst. Director General (PA-Admn) is taken on record.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that though the Respondent has provided the marks scored by the Appellant in the aforesaid exam, the relevant photocopies have not been provided citing the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar. The Commission further observes that it cannot deny the facts of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar (supra) are distinguishable from those in the present case. The legal doctrine of 'Stare Decisis' obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. It ensures that cases Page 3 of 5 CIC/POSTS/A/2019/600030 with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. In the present case, it is not clear as to how the ratio of the UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar (supra) case is applicable. Merely citing a case law does not suffice. The CPIO has failed to establish and convince the Commission as to how the facts and circumstances of the UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar (supra) case are similar and applicable to the present case. Thus, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified is on the CPIO. But in the instant case, the CPIO has been unable to discharge that responsibility. Hence, the provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information, which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities. The Commission therefore holds that candidates have a right to seek a copy of their respective answer sheet. It will not only contribute to transparency but also facilitate the candidates in assessing their performance.
In the light of the foregoing, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide a copy of the answer sheet as sought in the instant RTI Application to the Appellant, after redacting the details of the examiner concerned, under intimation to the Commission, within 15 days from the date of issue of this order.
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission points out that the written submission which contains partial revised information was dispatched to the Appellant through ordinary post and the same is being viewed adversely. Accordingly, the Commission cautions the Respondent public authority that in future, all the communication/correspondence under the RTI Act shall be sent through speed/registered post only.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.Page 4 of 5
CIC/POSTS/A/2019/600030 Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अनमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date: 04.12.2020 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) /ADG PA Admin., Department Of Posts, PA Wing, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) / Director ACAO Computer (LDCE AAO-2018), Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001
3. Shri K Kalimuthu Page 5 of 5