Central Information Commission
Mr.Praveen vs Dssb, Gnct, Delhi on 3 June, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001025/8003
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001025
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr.Parveen
S/o Late. Shri Ram Karan Rana,
R/o 187, Village Mungeshpur,
Opp. MCD Store,
Delhi- 110039.
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Delhi Subordinate Staff Selection Board (DSSB) FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi- 110092.
RTI application filed on : 20/10/2009 PIO replied : 11/11/2009 First appeal filed on : 09/12/2009 First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 30/12/2009 Second Appeal received on : 22/04/2010
The Appellant wanted information in regard to qualification of examiner, answer sheet, marks etc of the Examination conducted for the post of P.R. Teachers for which the Appellant was a candidate.
S.No. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO) A. Qualification of the examiner as per DSSSB Evaluators should be experts in the field Rules to check the answer sheet of P.R.T. where candidate's intelligentsia is checked through examination.
B. Qualification of examiner who checked the Confidential.
Appellant's answer sheet C. Number of questions in the main exam that ---
were based on psychology.
D. Qualification of examiner in the subject ---
psychology.
E. Marks obtained by the appellant in each ---
question.
F. Time limit for declaration of result of any ---
exam.
G. Furnishing to the appellant a certified copy of ---
the answer sheet of the applicant.
Ground of First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information received from the PIO. First Appellate Authority (FAA) ordered:
The Public Information Officer had been directed to reply to the appellant within seven days of the order.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Praveen;
Respondent : Absent;
Most of the information has been provided to the Appellant. The Appellant had sought the educational qualification of the person who had examined his answer sheet. This has not been supplied on the grounds that this is confidential. Denial of information under RTI can only be done if it is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. There is no category of "confidential" not being disclosed. The Commission cannot see how the information about the qualifications of an examiner can be denied under the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the qualification of the examiner as sought by the appellant before 20 June 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 03 June 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SC)