Central Information Commission
Amit Kumar Singh vs Indira Gandhi National Open University ... on 25 June, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IGNOU/A/2019/655094
Amit Kumar Singh अपीलकता /Appellant
....अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indira Gandhi National Open
University, RTI Cell, Head Office,
93 Maidan Garhi Road, Maidan Garhi,
New Delhi - 110068. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23/06/2021
Date of Decision : 23/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17/10/2019
CPIO replied on : 22/10/2019
First appeal filed on : 22/10/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 25/10/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/10/2019
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 17.10.2019 seeking following information;1
1. "The exact detailed procedure of evaluation and re-evaluation of answer script of a student in IGNOU.
2. Time-period mentioned in University Statutes regarding declaration of Re-evaluation result."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 22.10.2019 stating as follows:-
" This is to inform you that a copy of rule of regulation for re-evaluation of answer script is annexed."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.10.2019 on the ground that annexures mentioned in CPIO's reply were not provided to him. FAA's order dated 25.10.2019 furnished a copy of the notification for the rules & regulations re-valuation of answer scripts.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground that false and incomplete information has been given by the CPIO and FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Anil Kumar, SED & PIO present through audio-conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that notification provided by the PIO was incomplete to the extent that the said notification only spells about the procedure for filing a form regarding re-evaluation of answer scripts. He further stated that the information regarding evaluation of answer scripts against point no 1 of RTI Application and also the time period as sought for at point no 2 of RTI Application was not provided to him till date.
The PIO submitted that a copy of rules/regulations regarding re-evaluation has already been provided to the Appellant. He further explained that the rules/regulations of IGNOU with regard to evaluation of answer scripts of 2 students is not in the public domain, however as per the extant practice, answer scripts for evaluation are forwarded to the board's approved evaluators who evaluate the same and while forwarding the copies of answer scripts, on the covering letter a time line is indicated and intimated to the evaluators.
PIO apprised the Commission that as per extant practice result of evaluated answer scripts are usually declared within 45 days of exams, however, results of re-valuation are declared within 30 days but the rules & regulation of revaluation of IGNOU with regards to time period of revaluation/evaluation are silent on this aspect .
Upon a query from the Commission, he affirmed that copy of rules/regulations with respect to re-evaluation of answer scripts is already in the public domain and the same can be accessed from the IGNOU's website.
Lastly, at the behest of Commission, PIO agreed to provide a statement against point 2 of RTI Application indicating the time period regarding the declaration of re-valuation of results to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based upon perusal of facts on record observes that although the reply and the available information given by the PIO initially was as per the provisions of RTI Act, however, in view of the supplementary explanation given by him during the hearing, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the same in writing along with other relevant additional information as also the specific hyperlink free of cost to the Appellant. The said direction shall be complied by the PIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
However, a pertinent issue emanating from the instant case on the policy matters of IGNOU regarding the evaluation of answer scripts . It will be in the best interest of IGNOU to explore the viability of introducing a FAQs Section on their website wherein the most commonly sought for clarifications on similar nature of queries can be identified and relevant information in that regard can be placed in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo motu disclosures 3 prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record.
In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4