Central Information Commission
Banamali Sahu vs Banaras Hindu University on 24 April, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका, नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/BANHU/A/2017/179320/00502
File no.: CIC/BANHU/A/2017/179320
In the matter of:
Banamali Sahu
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Assistant Registrar (Exam)
Banaras Hindu University,
O/o the Controller of Examination,
Confidential Section, Varanasi - 221 005
&
Dy. Registrar (Admn - Teaching)
Nodal Officer& CAPIO,
Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi - 221 005
... Respondents
RTI application filed on : 15/05/2017 CPIO replied on : 16/06/2017 First appeal filed on : 18/07/2017 First Appellate Authority order : 16/08/2017 Second Appeal dated : 18/11/2017 Date of Hearing : 24/04/2019 Date of Decision : 24/04/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present
Respondent: Shri V.K Jaiswal, Assistant Registrar and CPIO Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:1
1. The names, Exam. Roll No. and Enrolment No. of the candidates of the M.Sc.
(previous) Chemistry Examinations in the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi - 221005 from the year 1992 to 2016 only who applied for re-evaluation of their papers in those examinations.
2. The obtained marks in the papers by the candidates before and after the re- evaluations of those papers in the M.Sc. (previous) Chemistry Examinations from the year 1992 to 2016 in this university.
3. The Grand Total of marks obtained by the candidates before and after the re-evaluations of their papers in the above said examinations from the year 1992 to 2016 in this university.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that his son Pathik Sahoo appeared in the M.Sc. (previous) Chemistry examination 2004 held by the Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Varanasi - 221005. Being dissatisfied with the result of the papers :
MCh. 401: Chemical Spectroscopy (A) Theory of spectroscopy (B) Application of spectroscopy to structural analysis MCh. 404: Organic Chemistry MCh. 405: Physical Chemistry MCh. 406: (A) Chemical Bonding (B) Bio Organic Chemistry he appealed for the re-evaluation of those papers. After the re-evaluation, his marks 41 for the paper MCh. 401 were reduced to 36, his marks 69 for the paper MCh. 404 were reduced to 50, his marks 47 for the paper MCh. 405 were reduced to 28, and his marks 53 for the paper MCh. 406 were reduced to
46. All total 50 marks were deducted in the re-evaluation. In this examination his exam Roll number was 03S03037 and his enrollment number was 271524.
After the final M.Sc. Exam (2005), his grand total was 863 adding the M.Sc. (previous) and M.Sc. (final) marks and he got 2nd class in the Chemistry M.Sc. Examination 2005. He stated that it is not expected of any institute in India to deduct such huge marks like 50 in re-evaluation in an examination. He further submitted that he assumes that this has never been happened in BHU or any other institute in India. In spite of his bright performances in various fields as described below, he has not got any interview letter for faculty position because of his 2nd class marks. Deduction of marks in each re-evaluated paper, especially the deduction of 19 marks each in paper MCh. 405 and MCh. 406 is 2 File no.: CIC/BANHU/A/2017/179320 abnormal, mysterious and suspect. He further demonstrated that his son's bright performances are:
(1) He cleared NET with CSIR (2005) and GET (conducted by IITs in 2005) with 95.09 percentile (AIR 170).
(2) He took part in 11 science seminars in Indian and abroad (including 1 in U.S.A.). He delivered lectures in National University of Singapore, Chinese Academy of Science, IIT Dhanbad about his research works. (3) He passed written exam for Ph.D. program in IISc, Bangalore (4) He got the opportunity for Ph.D. program in Indian Association of Cultivation of Sciences (IACS), Kolkata for his bright performances in NET and GET. He successfully completed his Ph.D. in Chemistry from IACS, Kolkata. (5) During his Ph.D. he published his research works in different reputed international journals; some of the works were published with journal cover page highlights.
(6) After Ph.D., he worked in National Institute of Materials Science (NIMS), Japan and then in Sub Yat-Sen University, China. Presently he is a senior post- doctoral researcher in NIMS, Japan. He collaborated and published extensively as post-doctoral researcher.
(7) So far he has about 20 international publications. (8) After being selected in Chinese Academy of Sciences, he researched on water oxidation in China. This type of research has the great potential in helping countries like India where demand for fuel is ever rising. Against all odds in China and risking his security, he protected some of the important end results for his country (India).
(9) Currently he is doing research in Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Japan. (10) He published one chapter in a book published by an Indian publisher (New Academic Publishers, New Delhi). He also has one chapter in a book published by Springer, New York, USA. His another book chapter by the same international publisher is being processed.
(11) He guided many junior Ph.D. students in Indian and abroad. Above mentioned performances certainly prove that he is capable and worthy of getting 1st class in M.Sc., which he was denied by an irresponsible and mysterious re-evaluation process. If 50 marks were not deducted during the re-evaluation process, he would have got a 1st class in M.Sc. Due to his 2nd class in M.Sc., he is not being considered for a faculty position by central 3 government research institutes and organizations. Is reduction of 50 marks in re-evaluation process normal or one-time incident surrounded by mystery was his question and to unravel it, he applied for some information from the CPIO. He further submitted that to make sure an injustice was not done to his son, it is necessary to know how many students in BHU, during period 1992- 2016, applied for the re-evaluation process and what happened to their applications. He further objected that in the name of personal interests of the applicant students, this information was not provided by the CPIO to him. This information is necessary in the interest of education and science research in India. No CPIO can refuse to provide such vital information in a case such as his which has national importance in the broader perspective. He summed up stating that according to the RTI Act 2005, he appealed for the information of S. F. Examinations of Shri Harekrishna Sahoo (Reference: No. Inf./ 121, Date:
28.05.09, SPIO W.B. Board of Secondary Education). He was provided the required information without being opposed in the name of personal interests.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply dated 16/06/2017 and further submitted that the FAA also had denied the information. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by the order of the Commission.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the records, it was noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the reduction of marks of his son in the re-evaluation process. Moreover, to examine whether earlier also there was reduction of marks of students during 1992 to 2016 of those who applied for re-evaluation he sought details under the RTI Act. The Commission opines that the appellant is at liberty to ask for any kind of information as per the RTI Act, however the information sought for can only be given if it is not exempted under the exemption clauses of the Act. The information sought for by him in points no. 1 to 8 relate to personal information of third parties and is exempt u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the appellant failed to demonstrate any larger public interest involved in the case. The case is more one of personal grievance . The FAA order was just and proper. The CPIO is advised to reply in future by invoking the proper exemption clauses.4
File no.: CIC/BANHU/A/2017/179320 Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission is not inclined to interfere with the FAA's order. The information sought for is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 5