Central Information Commission
Jagdish Maurya vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 7 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/2018/147194
CIC/DSSSB/A/2018/147113
Shri Jagdish Maurya ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/Dy. Secretary (RTI Cell),DSSSB,
Karkardooma, Delhi ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Through: Sh. Devendra Sharma
Date of Hearing : 06.02.2020
Date of Decision : 07.02.2020
lnformation Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
147194 27.04.2018 Nil 30.05.2018 Nil
147113 26.04.2018 Nil 10.05.2018 Nil
CIC/DSSSB/A/2018/147194
Appellant filed RTI application dated 27.04.2018 seeking scanned copy of OMR
sheet along with revised answer key of his question booklet of post code
201/2014 (field Assistant in Food Safety Department), mentioning that his Roll
Number for the post code 201/2014 is 15000928.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated
30.05.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore Appellant approached the
Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Respondent alone is present for hearing to the exclusion of the Appellant despite service of hearing notice in advance. Respondent produced certain documents during the hearing stating that while the answer keys have already been provided to the candidates through OARS portal, as per Board's policy as a part of current policy copy of answer sheet/OMR sheet are denied placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. in C.A. No. (5)/6159-6162 of 2013. It is noted that action history of the case, Page 1 of 4 submitted during hearing reveals that the FAA vide order dated 11.09.2018 had directed the PIO to furnish the OMR Sheet to the appellant.
Decision:
The Commission finds response of the respondent perplexing and cannot agree with the stance adopted by the respondent. In this context, the Commission finds it imperative to note that such queries regarding information pertaining to OMR sheets and answer keys of examination are regularly received in the form of several Second appeals, need whereof arises since 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 revisit the relevant excerpts of the Apex Court decision for the purpose of clarity. In the case of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. [in C.A. Nos. 6159-6162 of 2013 decision dated 20.02.2018], 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 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.Page 2 of 4
Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced..."
Perusal of the above decision clearly establishes that the decision above is specifically aimed at "marks in Civil Services Exam" and it has been mentioned in the order categorically that situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Thus facts of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar (supra) case do not provide a blanket cover to deny marksheet/answersheet by all examining authorities and the above decision is distinguishable to the facts of the case at hand and ratio of the Angesh Kumar case cannot be applied to the instant case mutatis mutandis for difference of factual matrix. Since merely citing a decision is not sufficient unless they are factually akin, hence the reliance placed by the PIO on the Apex Court decision, for denial of information, is set aside since he has not been able to justify the denial of information and how the facts of the above case [Angesh Kumar] is applicable in this case.
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 own OMR sheet. It will not only contribute to transparency but also facilitate the candidates in assessing their own performance.
In the light of the foregoing, the Commission hereby directs the PIO to provide Copy of Appellant‟s OMR- answer Sheet as sought by him, in compliance with the FAA's order dated 11.09.2018, within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Compliance report with respect to the above directions shall be submitted by the PIO/DSSSB- Sh. Devendra Kumar Sharma, before the Commission by 10.03.2020, including proof of service of the requisite information/OMR sheet to the appellant. It is made clear that non-adherence of these directions shall attract penal action as per law.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
CIC/DSSSB/A/2018/147113 Appellant filed RTI application dated 26.04.2018 seeking information on the following 3points:
Page 3 of 41. Provide the revised answer key of post code 201/2014 filed Assistant in Food Safety Department.
2. Provide all 21 candidates marks list who qualified for the e-dossier in post code 201/2014.
3. When writing list provided for post code 70/13 i.e. in Delhi Transco Limited.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 10.05.2018 which was not adjudicated therefore Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Respondent alone is present for hearing to the exclusion of the Appellant despite service of hearing notice in advance. Respondent has submitted a written submission dated 05.02.2020 indicating that information sought by the appellant has already been furnished to him through OARS portal and/or website of the Board.
Decision After perusal of the records, the Commission notes that the desired information appears to have been provided by the PIO and is found to be in order and no interference with the same is required. Appellant has not appeared thereby indicating his disinterest in pursuing the matter. No further adjudication is necessary in this case.
Appeal is thus disposed off, with no further 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