Central Information Commission
Saurav Mishra vs Indira Gandhi National Open University ... on 25 October, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IGNOU/A/2023/643532
Saurav Mishra ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Indira Gandhi National
Open University, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 28.08.2023 FA : 01.09.2023 SA : Nil
CPIO : 28.08.2023 FAO : 04.09.2023 Hearing : 22.10.2024
Date of Decision: 24.10.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:
I have appeared for the MA 1st Year examination conducted by the IGNOU. I am not happy with the marks declared on 09/08/2023, 14/08/2023, and 24/08/2023 in my result with the following particulars:
Subject: Seeking scanned/photocopy of my answer book of the IGNOU examination.
Personal Details Page 1 of 5 Name of the candidate: Saurav Mishra Date of Birth: 23/02/2001 Father Name: Mithilesh Mishra Contact no: 75*****081 E-mail ID: sauravm******@gmail.com Address for correspondence: House No 156, Road No 04, Rajput Nagar, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar - 844101 Exam related details Student Enrolment No: 2254285676 Examination: MA Psychology (MAPC) 1st Year Exam Centre Code: 29078 Month: June Year: 2023 Paper No:
Course Code Course Name
(i) MPC-001 Cognitive Psychology, Learning and Memory
(ii) MPC-002 Life Span Psychology
(iii) MPC-003 Personality: Theories and Assessment
(iv) MPC-004 Advanced Social Psychology
(v) MPC-005 Research Methods in Psychology
(vi) MPC-006 Statistics in Psychology
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"It is to inform you that University has a provision to re-evaluation and obtaining the photocopy of the Answer Script and, by applying through online paying the requisite fee subject to the condition that student should be eligible to apply under Page 2 of 5 this Scheme within 45 days of declaration of the results. A link for apply online is mentioned below: https://onlineservices.ignou.ac.in/reevaluation/"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.09.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 04.09.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Jagram Meena, CPIO and Shri Gyan Prakash Kujur, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the erstwhile CPIO had provided the web-link to apply and requested the appellant to obtain copy of his answer book as per the University's Scheme within 45 days from the date of declaration of results. The CPIO further informed that the retention period for the answer scripts was one year, and the requisitioned answer book had been weeded out, as per the extant retention policy.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent vide letter dated 28.08.2023 is incorrect and misleading. Perusal of the contents in the RTI application make it evident that the results for 1st year M.A. examination conducted by IGNOU had been declared on 09/08/2023, 14/08/2023, 24/08/2023 and the appellant had filed the RTI application dated 28.08.2023 seeking his own answer sheet. However, the erstwhile CPIO had directed the appellant to approach the University through its Scheme instead of directly providing a copy of the answer sheet in response to the RTI application. In this regard, the Commission would like to draw the respondent's attention to the following observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment dated 9th August, 2011 in Central Board Of Sec. Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [2011 (8) SCC 497]:
Page 3 of 5"18. In these cases, the High Court has rightly denied the prayer for re- evaluation of answer-books sought by the candidates in view of the bar contained in the rules and regulations of the examining bodies. It is also not a relief available under the RTI Act. Therefore, the question whether re- evaluation should be permitted or not, does not arise for our consideration. What arises for consideration is the question whether the examinee is entitled to inspect his evaluated answer-books or take certified copies thereof. This right is claimed by the students, not with reference to the rules or bye- laws of examining bodies, but under the RTI Act which enables them and entitles them to have access to the answer-books as `information' and inspect them and take certified copies thereof. Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer-books fall under the exempted category of information described in clause (e) of section 8(1) of RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer-books, even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under the rules/bye-laws of the examining body governing the examinations. Therefore, the decision of this Court in Maharashtra State Board (supra) and the subsequent decisions following the same, will not affect or interfere with the right of the examinee seeking inspection of answer-books or taking certified copies thereof."
In view of the above, it is deciphered that the CPIO's decision for refusal of the appellant's answer book in response to his RTI application was in contradiction to the landmark judgment quoted above as well as the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, Shri Manoj Kumar, the then CPIO, is show-caused to send a proper written explanation to the Commission for giving a misleading reply to the appellant. The said written explanation shall reach the Commission (upload on the Commission's web portal) within 15 days of the date of receipt of this order, failing which, adverse action may be initiated against him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Shri Jagram Meena, present CPIO, is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order to the then Page 4 of 5 CPIO and ensure that written explanations are submitted within the above prescribed time limit. Meanwhile, the CPIO is directed to re-examine the matter and give a revised response to the appellant, in accordance with the records available under their custody as well as provisions of the RTI Act, within 15 days of the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 24.10.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Indira Gandhi National Open
University, CPIO, (RTI Cell),
Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068
2. Saurav Mishra
Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)