Central Information Commission
Neeraj Kumar vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 5 February, 2020
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2019/600877
Shri Neeraj Kumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
Rep. by Shri Danveer Singh
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO/ O/o. the Dy. Secy.,
Delhi Subordinate Service
Selection Board (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Through: Sh. Devender Kumar, SO, Secret Cell
Sh. Balwant Singh, SO, (I. Cell)
Date of Hearing : 21.01.2020
Date of Decision 05.02.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
600877 06.09.2018 26.09.2018 18.11.2018 21.12.2018
The Appellant filed the RTI application dated 06.09.2018seeking information
on six points:-
1. Provide me the copy of my answer sheet with questions and answers
attempted by him in the above mentioned examination.
2. I put objection on three answers of answer key provided by DSSSB in the
above mentioned examination. Supply me information which one of my
objections accepted and which one rejected in final answer key.
3. Provide me the final answer key of above mentioned examination.
4. How many marks Appellant actually got in this examination before
normalization.
5. Provide me the list of candidates who got marks above cut off in
unreserved category in above mentioned examination with their marks
before normalization and after normalization.
6. Provide me the details regarding number of candidates shortlisted from
morning shift and evening shift separately against the unreserved category
PGT History Male post code 112/17.
On 26.09.2018, PIO provided point wise reply to the Appellant in respect of
queries no. 1, 5 and 6. Queries no. 2, 3 and 4 were transferred to DS, Secret
Cell.
Being dissatisfied, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 18.11.2018.
Page 1 of 4
FAA vide order dated 21.12.2018, upheld the reply of PIO (Interview Cell) in
respect of queries no. 1, 5 and 6. FAA advised the Appellant to file another
First Appeal in case unsatisfactory information was received from another
PIO (DS, Secret Cell).
Dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second
Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The hearing was held through video conferring. Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Appellant reiterates the facts and circumstances leading to the present Second Appeal. It is the grievance of the Appellant that no adequate information has till date been provided to him. Respondent has filed two replies dated 20.01.2020 on record. In response to queries 1-3, reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. in C.A. No. (5)/6159- 6162 of 2013 for non-disclosure of information. In response to queries 4-6, Respondent has provided point wise reply to the Appellant. On being questioned as to who is the FAA governing DS, Secret Cell, the Respondent replies that both the Interview Cell and DS, Secret Cell have the same FAA.
Decision:
As a matter of routine, Commission receives several appeals regarding information pertaining to OMR sheets and answer keys of examinations. It is also observed that the candidates appearing in competitive examinations face immense inconvenience in retrieving information regarding their own performance in such examinations.
Considering the case law relied upon by the Respondent, Commission is inclined to draw attention to certain relevant excerpts in that case for the purpose of brevity.
In UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. in C.A. No. (5)/6159-6162 of 2013 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made following observations in context of disclosure of Civil Service Examinations marks under the RTI:
(8) The problems in showing evaluated answer sheets in the UPSC Civil Services Examination are recorded in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC1.
From the counter affidavit in the said case, following extract was referred to :
"(B) Problems in showing evaluated answer books to candidates.--
(i) Final awards subsume earlier stages of evaluation. Disclosing answer books would reveal intermediate stages too, including the so-called 'raw marks' which would have negative implications for the integrity of the examination system, as detailed in Section (C) below.
(ii) The evaluation process involves several stages. .......
(v) With the disclosure of evaluated answer books, the danger of coaching institutes collecting copies of these from candidates (after Page 2 of 4 perhaps encouraging/inducing them to apply for copies of their answer books under the RTI Act) is real, with all its attendant implications.
......
(viii) UPSC is now able to get some of the best teachers and scholars in the country to be associated in its evaluation work. An important reason for this is no doubt the assurance of their anonymity, for which the Commission goes to great lengths. Once disclosure of answer books starts and the inevitable challenges (including litigation) from disappointed candidates starts, it is only a matter of time before these examiners who would be called upon to explain their assessment/award, decline to accept further assignments from the Commission.
.....
(10) Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing.
From the above it cannot be denied that the facts of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar (supra) case 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 with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. In the present case, upon perusing the available records, it does not become clear as to how the ratio of the UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar (supra) case is applicable in the present case. Merely citing a case law would not suffice. The PIO 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 PIO. But in the instant case, the PIO has been unable to discharge that responsibility.
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 the OMR 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 PIO to provide Copy of Appellant's answer sheet with questions and answers attempted by him together with final answer key, as also sought by him in queries no. 1 & 3, to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act, under intimation to the Commission, within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order.
Before parting with the case, Commission deems it necessary to make the following observation. Upon hearing the submissions of both the parties and Page 3 of 4 perusing the available records, Commission notes with concern that while both the Interview Cell and DS, Secret Cell have the same FAA however, in FAO dated 21.12.2018 an unnecessary distinction between the two was drawn. No cogent explanation has been offered by the Respondent for the same. This reflects poorly on the working of the Respondent public authority. A warning is hereby issued to the Respondent to PIOs to refrain from engaging in conduct that is in violation of the RTI Act. The PIOs are directed to exercise due diligence and application of mind while handling RTI matters. In future, such violation of the RTI Act shall result in penal action.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above observations and directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4