Central Information Commission
Chand Kumar vs Department Of Posts on 23 March, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/POSTS/A/2020/697683
Chand Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Posts,
RTI Cell, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/03/2022
Date of Decision : 22/03/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04/12/2018
CPIO replied on : 19/01/2019
First appeal filed on : 08/12/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 16/12/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 04.12.2018 seeking photocopy of his own answer sheets of AAO Limited Departmental Examination 2018.1
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 19.01.2019 stating as follows:-
"Answer sheets cannot be revealed as per Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement pronounced in the matter of UPSC vs Angesh Kumar, Feb 2018, in Civil Appeal No. (s).6159-6162 of 2013."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.12.2020. FAA's order dated 16.12.2020 rejected the first appeal as time barred Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present. (Remained unavailable for audio-conference hearing.) Respondent: S K Pandey, Director PA-Admn & Account) & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The CPIO apprised the Commission that after taking note of the earlier decisions of the CIC on similar issue regarding disclosure of information, he took cognizance of the fact and agreed to abide by the direction of the Commission for divulging the answer sheets to the applicants.
He further went on to say that the Respondent Authority have taken cognizance of the decision of the CIC and decided to circulate it to all its field units.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records remarked that similar issue has already been decided by this bench on 03.03.2022 in another Second Appeal of different Appellant vide case no. CIC/POSTS/A/2021/602261. The relevant observation of which is reproduced below -
"...The Commission upon a perusal of facts on records observes that the square denial of Appellant's own answer scripts by the CPIO in response to point no. 2 by citing a decision of the Apex Court, which is neither applicable nor relevant to the examination held by them, was completely inappropriate. Perusal of the decision reveals that the scope of the Apex Court decision in Angesh Kumar's case 2 specifically deals with the Competitive exams. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors in Civil Appeal No. (s) 6159-6162 of 2013 decided on 20.02.2018 had observed that as following:
"........we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. 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."
The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is thus limited to the Competitive Exams which do not cover the Departmental Exams per-se held by the Public Authorities. Moreover, the Commission sees this as a serious case wherein multiple Second Appeals related to the said exam are being heard by the Commission on regular basis.
The Commission further observes that the issue to access his/ her own answer sheet by a candidate had been long settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. SLP (C) No. 7526/2009 decision dated 9thAugust, 2011, wherein it was observed that every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or taking certified copies thereof unless the same was exempted under Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. The relevant observations made in the judgment are as under:
"11. The definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the RTI Act refers to any material in any form which includes records, documents, opinions, papers among several other enumerated items. The term 'record' is defined in section 2(i) of the said Act as including any document, manuscript or file among others. When a candidate participates in an examination and writes his answers in an answer- book and submits it to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer-book is a document or record. When the answer-book is evaluated by an examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer-book becomes a record containing the 'opinion' of the examiner. Therefore the evaluated answer-book is also an 'information' under the RTI Act."
It was furthermore stated in Para 14 of the above-mentioned judgment "The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer-books are exempted from 3 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 sub section (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."
The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBSE and Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay was further relied in the decision pronounced on 16.08.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kumar Shanu and Anr. V. CBSE in I.A. No. 01/2016 in Contempt Petition No. 9837/2016 Civil Appeal NO.6454/2011.
The Commission also referred to another decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi pertaining to disclosure of a candidate's own answer script in the matter of Treesha Irish vs. CPIO and Ors., WP (C) No. 6352 of 2006 dated 30.08.2010 wherein it was held as under:
21...................... The valued answer paper, if at all, can be personal information relating to the candidate who has written the same. When the candidate applies for copy of the same, it cannot be denied to the candidate on the ground that it is personal information, insofar as, if that information would compromise anybody, it is the candidate himself/herself. The conduct of the examination for selection to the post of Last Grade officials is certainly a public activity and therefore the valuation of answer papers of that examination has relationship to a public activity of the department in the matter of selection to a higher post. A candidate writing an examination has a right to have his answer paper valued correctly and he has a right to know whether the same has been done properly and correctly. Both the public authority and the examiner have a public duty to get the valuation done correctly and properly, which is a public activity and duty. Therefore the supply of the copy of the answer paper, which is for enabling the candidate to ascertain whether the valuation of the answer paper has been done correctly and properly, has relationship to a public activity or interest.
23. There is no provision anywhere in the Act to the effect that information can be refused to be disclosed if no public interest is involved. Of course in a case of personal information, if it has no relationship with any public activity or interest, the information officer has discretion to refuse to disclose the same, if the larger public interest does not justify disclosure of such information. But on the ground of lack of public interest involved alone, the public information officer cannot refuse to disclose the information, without a finding first that the information is personal information having no relationship to any public activity or interest. I am at a loss 4 to understand how disclosure of the valued answer paper would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection process. If at all, it would only enhance the fairness and impartiality of the selection process by holding out to the candidates that anybody can ascertain the fairness and impartiality by examining the valued answer papers. In fact, an ideal situation would be to furnish a copy of the answer paper along with the mark lists of the candidates so that they can satisfy themselves that the answer papers have been valued properly and they secured the marks they deserved for the answers written by them. Therefore the reason given in Ext P3, by the 1st respondent, is patently unsustainable."
Considering the square applicability of aforesaid judgement and also in furtherance of hearing proceedings the CPIO is hereby directed to provide a revised categorical reply along with a copy of answer sheets as sought for in the instant RTI Application, free of cost to the Appellant.
The above said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5