Central Information Commission
Mr.P Thirupathi vs Department Of Posts on 4 February, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000180/4485
04 February 2014
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. P. Thirupathi Rao
Postmaster Grade-I
Chipurupalli LSG SO
Chipurupalli-535128
Andhra Pradesh Circle
Respondent : CPIO & Superintendent of Post Offices
Department of Posts
Parvatipuram Division,
Parvatipuram - 535501
RTI application filed on : 09/05/2012
PIO replied on : 24/07/2012
First appeal filed on : 04/08/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 18/09/2012
Second Appeal received on : 27/12/2012
Information sought:
The applicant wants copy of total marks secured by him in all the four papers of Inspector of Posts examination 2011 along with valued answer papers (OMR sheets with key) of Inspector of Post Examination 2011 paper wise in respect of Roll No. 1110000167.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. P. Thirupathi Rao through VC Respondent: Mr. W Nagaditya CPIO through VC The CPIO stated that the appellant's result has been withheld as he was not eligible to appear in the examination and till his candidature is regularized by the circle office, the OMR answer sheets cannot be supplied. The appellant contested stating that he was issued the admit card and the examination took place in two phases with a gap of four months and if he was not eligible why the respondent allowed him to write the examination for both the phases. He further stated that he is only seeking copy of his OMR sheets and the information under the RTI Act can be denied only if it is exempt under the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Act.Page 1 of 2
Decision notice:
The RTI Act codifies the citizens' fundamental right to information. It is established that information may be exempted from disclosure in accordance with Section 8 and 9 only and no other exemptions can be claimed while rejecting a demand for disclosure. If the Commission were to accept the argument of the respondent, it would imply reading in an additional exemption in Section 8 of the RTI Act, which was not envisaged by the Parliament. In view of the foregoing, the argument of the respondent is not sustainable. Hence, copy of the OMR sheets of the appellant should be supplied to him within three weeks.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2