N Agilandeswari vs Institute Of Actuaries Of India on 7 February, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

N Agilandeswari vs Institute Of Actuaries Of India on 7 February, 2022

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 25.06.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 15.02.2019 and first appeal dated 24.04.2019:-

(i) "Examination evaluated answer booklet for PC T4 December 2018 and what is the pass mark for PCT4 December 2020."

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 15.02.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Institute of Actuaries of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 14.03.2019/11.04.2019 replied to the Page 1 of 4 appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 24.04.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 11.05.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 25.06.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 25.06.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory; that the respondent had provided copy of model answer key instead of the copy of her evaluated answer script. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.03.2019 requested to deposit additional fee of Rs. 84/- representing the cost of providing the information as per calculation. The total pages of the answer script was 42 and hence the cost was Rs. 2 for each page; cut off marks for CT4 Dec 2018 examination was 50. The CPIO vide letter dated 11.04.2019 stated that the answer booklet provided by the examination department of CT4 December 2018 examination, Roll No. 6140001 M. ID. 536 was provided to the appellant. The FAA vide order dated 11.05.2019 stated that the CPIO had already provided the information requested by the appellant as it existed and based on available facts, no further action was called for in the matter.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Yogesh Pandit, CPIO, Institute of Actuaries of India, Navi Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the answer script provided by the respondent was model answer paper and was not the evaluated answer sheet or mark sheet that she filled in the examination. The appellant further submitted that she had self- evaluated her answers as per the model answer key and she found certain discrepancies in the marks awarded to her. Therefore, she wanted copy of her evaluated answer sheet including the mark sheet.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the marking of answer paper for each candidate was done separately on another sheet and the average Page 2 of 4 marks of the marks allotted by three evaluators was awarded to the candidate. Therefore, disclosure of the mark sheet would reveal the identity of the evaluators as well as the marks given by each of those evaluators individually. Therefore, the result was and the sample answer paper was made available to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. The appellant sought copy of her evaluated answer sheet and not of any other candidate. Further, the details of evaluators, if any, could be redacted before disclosing copy of the answer sheet. Therefore, the reasons for denial of information by the respondent are perfunctory and not sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of the above, the respondent is directed that the copy of answer sheet and marking sheet of the appellant as sought in the RTI application be made available to the appellant, after redacting the names of the examination evaluators, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-


                                                                             सुरेश चं ा)
                                                          (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                          सूचना आयु )
                                               Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                दनांक/Date: 07.02.2022
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)


Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : INSTITUTE OF ACTUARIES OF
INDIA, UNIT NO F-206, 2ND FLOOR,
F WING, TOWER II, SEAWOODS GRAND
CENTRAL, PLOT NO.R-1, SECTOR 40,
NERUL ROAD, NAVI MUMBAI- 400706.


                                                                                   Page 3 of 4
 FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
INSTITUTE OF ACTUARIES OF INDIA,
UNIT NO F-206, 2ND FLOOR,
 F WING, TOWER II, SEAWOODS GRAND
CENTRAL, PLOT NO.R-1, SECTOR 40,
NERUL ROAD, NAVI MUMBAI- 400706.


N AGILANDESWARI




                                    Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission