Central Information Commission
Akhilesh Kumar vs Department Of Posts on 24 August, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/BS/A/2016/000142
Akhilesh Kumar v. PIO, Department of Posts
RTI : Nil
FAO : Nil
Second Appeal : 07.01.2016
Hearing : 04.07.2017
Appellant : Absent
Public Authority : Shri Rajesh Kumar, ASP-PMG
Decided On : 24.08.2017
FINAL ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought information on PA/SA Accountants examination held on 17.05.2015. Specifically he sought for (1) score secured by the selected candidates in both paper I and II; (2) certified copies of few candidates answer script and (3) the minimum score to be obtained by the various categories. PIO provided information on point no. 3 and denied information on point nos. 1 and 2, the same was upheld by the FAA and also returned the IPO paid along with first appeal. Being dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Commission.
Decision :
2. When department holds an examination for recruitment or promotion, the candidates or every other person is entitled to know how the selections were made. Like selected candidates have right to information, the non-selected candidates also have right to information about their non-selection along with reasons and they also should be informed where they stood in the competition. The non-selected are also entitled also to know complete information about process, ranks and comparative merits or demerits of the candidates who appeared for the examination for recruitment or promotion.
3. The DoPT office memorandum dated 29.06.2015 mandates every public authority to place entire details of recruitment, promotion and transfer of CIC/BS/A/2016/000142 Page 1 employees. This means not only the candidates, who applied for, participated in and faced the selection process but also the general public have right to information about this information/process. Appellant is seeking the answer- sheets of both paper I and II of six candidates whose roll number is also mentioned. There is no reason to reject this request. The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment in CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [2011 (8) SCC 497] finally settling principle on sharing the answer sheets of the candidates in the interest of protecting the standards of education through transparency. As per the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the evaluated answer-books pertaining to service related examination, being a "document, manuscript record, and opinion" fell within the definition of "information" as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. It held that the provisions of the RTI Act should be interpreted in a manner which would lead towards dissemination of information rather than withholding the same. As laid down by the Supreme Court:
"The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption... We, therefore, hold that an examining body does not hold the evaluated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption under section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer-books. As no other exemption under section 8 is available in respect of evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection sought by the examinees."
4. Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Kewal Singh Gautam Vs. State of Chandigarh [AIR 2011Chh143] had also interpreted Sec 8 (1)(e) & (J) with regard to individual own answer sheet as follows :
"11. Fiduciary relationship is one where a party stands in a relationship of trust to another party. The said relationship gives rise to an obligation to protect the interest of other party. Present is not a case where the petitioners are seeking disclosure of an information with regard to the valuation done by the examiner in respect of any other departmental candidate who appeared in the examination. Division Bench of the High CIC/BS/A/2016/000142 Page 2 Court of Calcutta in the case of University of Calcutta (supra), held as under:
"The plea of fiduciary relationship, advanced by the CBSE has not impressed us. Fiduciary relationship is not to be equated with privacy and confidentiality. It is one where a party stands in a relationship of trust to another party and is generally obliged to protect the interest of the other party. While entrusting an examiner with the work of assessment/evaluation of an answer script there is no agreement between the examiner and the public authority that the work performed by the examiner shall be kept close to the chest of the public authority and shall be immune from scrutiny/ inspection by anyone. At least nothing in this respect has been placed before us. Since the RTI Act has been enacted to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and for containing corruption, even if there be such a clause in the agreement between the examiner and the public authority the same would be contrary to public policy and thus void. We have no hesitation to hold that even if there be any agreement between the public authority and the examiner that the assessment/evaluation made by the latter would be withheld on the ground that it is confidential and an assurance is given in this respect, the same cannot be used as a shield to counter a request from an examinee to have access to his assessed/evaluated answer scripts and the RTI Act would obviously override such assurance. Having regard to our understanding of the meaning of the word 'fiduciary', there is little scope to hold that the etchings/markings made on answer scripts by an examiner are held in trust by the public authority immune from disclosure under the RTI Act. We find no force in the contention which, accordingly, stands overruled".
5. Since the examination in question is service related one, based on which the recruitments are made, it is wrong to claim that it was either personal or third party information. The Commission directs Shri Rajesh Kumar, ASP to take this issue before their governing body so that they review their policy and provide copies of answer sheets of the six students to this appellant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also recommends the respondent authority to take appropriate steps to bring in transparency and accountability in their department. The Commission reminds the respondent authority about their legal duty to strictly follow the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 29.06.2015 as per which all the promotion, recruitment information has to be disclosed. Disposed of.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/BS/A/2016/000142 Page 3
Authenticated true copy
(Dinesh Kumar)
Deputy Registrar
Copy of decision given to the parties free of cost.
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI,
Department of Posts,
Chief Post Master General,
UP Division, Lucknow, UP.
2. Shri Akhilesh Kumar,
CIC/BS/A/2016/000142 Page 4