Central Information Commission
Rajat Kumar Mehra vs Institute Of Chartered Accoutant Of ... on 8 October, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ICAOI/A/2017/151578
Rajat Kumar Mehra ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, The Institute of Chartered ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Accountants of India, ICAI Bhawan,
New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 08.04.2017 FA : 09.06.2017 SA : 21.07.2017
CPIO : 09.05.2017 FAO : 07.07.2017 Hearing : 28.09.2018
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), ICAI, New Delhi seeking information on 14 points including, inter-alia, (i) copies of agenda, verbatim, audio recording for Item No. 18 of 361st Council Meeting of the Institute held on 24th, 25th and 26th December 2016, and (ii) details of scaling methodology.
Page 1 of 62. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the information provided to him by the CPIO in response to point nos. 1(a) part, 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), 2 to 12 of his RTI application is incorrect and incomplete. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide him complete and correct information, to impose penalty upon the respondent, to take necessary action against the erring officials and to award him compensation.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Rajat Kumar Mehra and the respondent Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Asstt. Secretary & CPIO, Ms. Seema Gerotra, Jt. Director & FAA, Shri Rajiv Seth, Jt. Secretary (Exams), ICAI, New Delhi were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that the CPIO has deliberately not provided the agenda, verbatim, for Item No. 18 of 361st Council Meeting of the Institute held on 24th, 25th and 26th December 2016 as sought vide point no. 1(a) of the RTI application. He stated that the verbatim of the Council meeting exists, however, the CPIO incorrectly stated that verbatim does not exist. The appellant added that verbatim for the above said item no. 18 of 361st Council Meeting was provided to one, Shri CA Rahul Kumar Singh in response to his RTI application dated 24.01.2017. Further, the CPIO has also not provided the scaling methodology and a copy of the decision of the Examination Committee as to the scaling methodology sought by him vide point nos. 1(d) and 1(f) of the RTI application. Moreover, the CPIO's response to point nos. 7 and 8 of the RTI application is not satisfactory as he had specifically sought to know whether his answers were re- verified manually and if so, the name of the checker.
Page 2 of 65. The respondent submitted that the practice of recording of the meeting's agenda, verbatim, has been discontinued by the Institute since November 2016 after introduction of audio-recording. The respondent explained that in the 361st meeting of the Council held during 24.12.2016 to 26.12.2016 at Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu, only recording of the proceedings were taken and the verbatim in respect of Item No. 18 which was discussed on 26.12.2016 had been received by Council Affairs Dept. only on 27.08.2017. Hence, the applicant, Shri Rahul Kumar Singh was informed vide reply dated 23.02.2017 that verbatim is not available and that the audio recording (DVD) containing the proceedings of the said Council Meeting was provided to the applicant on 07.03.2017. Hence, information as per the available records has been provided to the appellant on point no. 1(a) of the RTI application. Further, the scaling methodology sought vide point no. 1(f) of the RTI application has also been provided to the appellant in the relevant extract from the minutes of the 329th meeting of the Council as well as in the extract of the Agenda for the 361st Meeting of the Council of the Institute. The respondent explained that the Information Systems Audit-Assessment Test (ISA-AT) paper is for 200 marks and hence, the passing requirement is 150 scaled marks, i.e., 75% of
200. Further, the highest marks secured by a candidate, in the examination, is notionally treated as equivalent to 100%. Marks obtained by all other candidates in the said exam are scaled with reference to the highest marks. With respect to point nos. 7 and 8 of the RTI application, the respondent added that there is no re- verification process for checking of answers. However, the appellant had been informed that the verification of his answer books was done by the system and the review is done by the checkers. Moreover, the name of the checker cannot be Page 3 of 6 disclosed to him, as it would endanger the life or physical safety of the checker. Hence, the disclosure is exempt under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that an appropriate response has not been provided to the appellant by the respondent on point nos. 1(f), 7 and 8 of the RTI application regarding the decision of the Examination Committee as to Scaling Methodology, whether there was any manual reverification of the appellant's paper and the working papers of such verification. The Commission, however, observes that name of the examiner/checker sought by the appellant cannot be disclosed to him, as it would endanger the life or physical safety of the checker. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 09.08.2011 in CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) had observed as under:
"28. When an examining body engages the services of an examiner to evaluate the answer-books, the examining body expects the examiner not to disclose the information regarding evaluation to anyone other than the examining body. Similarly, the examiner also expects that his name and particulars would not be disclosed to the candidates whose answer-books are evaluated by him. In the event of such information being made known, a disgruntled examinee who is not satisfied with the evaluation of the answer books, may act to the prejudice of the examiner by attempting to endanger his physical safety. Further, any apprehension on the part of the examiner that there may be danger to his physical safety, if his identity becomes known to the examinees, may come in the way of effective discharge of his Page 4 of 6 duties. The above applies not only to the examiner, but also to the scrutiniser, co-ordinator, and head-examiner who deal with the answer book. The answer book usually contains not only the signature and code number of the examiner, but also the signatures and code number of the scrutiniser/co- ordinator/head examiner. The information as to the names or particulars of the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners are therefore exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger their physical safety."
7. In view of the above, the disclosure of the name of the examiner/checker is exempt under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide complete and correct information in respect of point nos. 1(f), 7 and 8 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 05.10.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ICAI Bhawan, Indraprastha Marg, New Delhi- 110002.
2. Shri Rajat Kumar Mehra Page 6 of 6