Central Information Commission
Ankur Kumar Singh vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 15 October, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2018/112828
Ankur Kumar Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/Dy. Secy. (Secret Cell) ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
DSSSB, Karkardooma, Delhi
PIO/Dy. Secy. (I.Cell), DSSSB,
Karkardooma, Delhi
Through: Sh. Devendra Kumar, SO
Sh. Balwant Singh, SO
Date of Hearing : 10.10.2019
Date of Decision : 14.10.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.09.2017
PIO replied on : 27.10.2017 & 15.11.2017
First Appeal filed on : 05.12.2017
First Appellate Order on : Nil
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 22.02.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 06.09.2017 seeking information on 4 points regarding written examination for the post of TGT Computer Science conducted by DSSSB on 21.05.2017.
A. Provide copy of OMR Sheet for Roll No. 13808185.
B. Provide copy of Booklet supplies to Roll No. 13808185 in the above said exam. C. Provide copy of final merit list with names and address of the candidates prepared on the basis of written examination and personal interview. D. Provide copy of answer key for the above said exam.
PIO/Dy. Secy. (Secret Cell), vide letter dated 27.10.2017 furnished the reply to the Appellant.
PIO/Dy. Secy. (I. Cell), vide letter dated 15.11.2017 furnished the information for queries no. A & C only.Page 1 of 3
PIO/DSSSB (EXAM-I) Branch vide letter dated 07.12.2017, answered the query no. B of the Appellant by informing him that the exam booklets were allowed to be retained by the candidates after the Exam.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from both the PIOs, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 05.12.2017 which was not adjudicated therefore Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing.
Appellant informs the Commission that as per various judgements of Courts and previous orders of the Commission, a candidate has right to secure copies of his/her answer sheet for their own reference.
Respondent submits that information pertaining to queries no. A & C have already been provided vide letter dated 15.11.2017 and for query no. B, vide letter dated 07.12.2017. With respect to query no. D, Respondent has made a submission dated 07.06,2017 which indicates that a notice was published by DSSSB announcing that answer key of the objective type examination for the post of TGT Computer Science post code 192/14 was available online and could be accessed by candidates after logging in. Respondent further states that this provision to check answer keys in the OARS portal is made available only for a certain time period, after which the link expires and can no longer be accessed by the candidate. Therefore, the same cannot now be provided to the Appellant. Appellant states that he was unwell during which period the answer keys were made accessible to the candidates therefore, he couldn't access the same.
Decision:
After hearing the submission of both the parties and perusal of records, the Commission discards the reasoning offered by the Respondent. At this stage, a reference may be drawn to the following judgements:
(i). In Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Versus Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., (Civil Appeal NO.6454 OF 2011), vide judgment dated- 09.08.2011, it was held:
14. The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer-books are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as they are 'information' held in its fiduciary relationship. They fairly conceded that evaluated answer-books will not fall under any other exemptions in subsection (1) of section 8. Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or take certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer-books are found to be exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
18. ... Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer-books fall under the exempted category of information described in clause (e) of section 8(1) of RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer-books, even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under the rules/bye-laws of the examining body governing the examinations.
Therefore, the decision of this Court in Maharashtra State Board (supra) and the subsequent decisions following the same, will not affect or interfere with the right of the examinee seeking inspection of answer-books or taking certified copies thereof.
Page 2 of 3(ii). In Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors. v. The State Information Commission and Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 823854 of 2016), it was held:
10. In the present case the request of the information seeker about the information of his answer sheets and details of the interview marks can be and should be provided to him. It is not something which a public authority keeps it under a fiduciary capacity. Even disclosing the marks and the answer sheets to the candidates will ensure that the candidates have been given marks according to their performance in the exam. This practice will ensure a fair play in this competitive environment, where candidate puts his time in preparing for the competitive exams, but, the request of the information seeker about the details of the person who had examined/checked the paper cannot and shall not be provided to the information seeker as the relationship between the public authority i.e. Service Commission and the Examiners is totally within fiduciary relationship.
In view of the aforesaid admitted position and applying the ratio of the judgments thereof in the present case, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent to furnish hard copies of OMR answer sheet and answer keys to the Appellant after redacting the names of the examiners, the disclosure of which is exempted under various provisions of the RTI Act. The information shall be provided to the Appellant, within three weeks from the date of issue of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of with the above observations and directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 3