Central Information Commission
Srikanth Sreedhar vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 26 June, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: CIC/NITST/A/2019/656942+657512+657610+657734
In the matter of:
Srikanth Sreedhar
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
National Institute of Technology, Surathkal,
P.O. Srinivasangar, Mangalore - 575025
...Respondents
Date of hearing : 25.06.2020
Date of decision : 25.06.2020
File Nos. RTI application CPIO First Appeal FAA's Second
filed on replied filed on Order on Appeal
on Dated
1.656942 23.08.19 04.09.19 22.09.19 18.10.19 14.11.19
2.657512 23.08.19 04.09.19 22.09.19 18.10.19 20.11.19
3.657610 23.08.19 04.09.19 22.09.19 18.10.19 21.11.19
4.657734 23.08.19 04.09.19 22.09.19 18.10.19 21.11.19
Note: The above listed cases of the appellant were clubbed together, as these are RTI applications involving similar subject matter and the same parties. For the sake of brevity, these cases were clubbed and adjudicated by a common order. The hearing too was conducted in a similar fashion.
The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Shri Soumen Karmakar, Assistant Registrar (Admin) and CPIO, Professor Nityananda Shetty, Dean (Academics) present over phone 1 Information Sought in File no. 656942:
The appellant has sought information regarding evaluator of the answer sheet for the Irrigation Design and Drawing subject examination held in June 2000, December 1999- January 2000, Aug,1999-Sept,1999 and re-valuation done in June,1999-July,1999 & Dec,1998-Jan,1999 (Hall Ticket No- 9502349).
Information Sought in File no. 657512, File no. 657610, File no. 657734: The appellant has sought information regarding re-evaluation of his answer sheet for the Irrigation Design & Drawing subject examination done in June 2000. After re-evaluation his marks increased by 26 marks from 22/100 to 48/100. As per Re-evaluation rules, NITK is supposed to take action against the person who gave him 22/100 in Dec 1999-Jan 2000 original evaluation, since that person deliberately failed him. Provide the details of the person who evaluated his answer sheet and what action NITK took against the said person as per the Re-evaluation Rules. (Hall Ticket No- 9502349). Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant through his written submissions via e-mail dated 24.06.2020 and 25.06.2020 contested the CPIO's reply. He sent lengthy submissions with allegations on the department. The Commission after going through all his submissions summarized and recorded the relevant portions. He submitted that no NITK Faculty can even 'touch' answer sheets without the permission of the NITK Administration. So the question of NITK Faculty touching Answer Sheets of students appearing for the exams conducted by Mangalore University without the permission of the NITK Administration simply does not even arise. NITK pays taxpayer money for evaluation of answer sheets. The authorized Custodian of NITK Funds (Registrar) signs to release funds to the Faculty. So, there are NITK documents that show that Taxpayer money was paid for the purpose of evaluation of answer sheets that bears the signature of the NITK Registrar. Besides, there are documents that bear the signature of NITK Admin like the NITK Dean (Academics) who are the NITK Faculty who got the funds for evaluation of Answer Sheets for the Applied Mechanics & Hydraulics Dept for Dec 1998, June 1999, Oct 1999 & DEC 1999? These documents will have the Registrar's signature for release of funds. If it was 2 ONLINE Funds Transfer, even then there will be some document that contains the names of Faculty to whom online direct deposit of funds is permitted.
He further mentioned that the NITK first batch was in Academic Year 1997-98 and crimes happened in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001.
He pointed out that NITK knows that his marks increased from 22 to 48 on revaluation. Still, NITK did not report to the Police. 19 Times Govt of Karnataka has informed Govt of India that there is need for CBI Probe via several CPGRAMS Grievances. He further submitted that the Govt of Karnataka has stated in writing via CPGRAMS that it is NITK issue. But NITK says that it is a Mangalore University issue and not NITK Surathkal issue.
NITK is a separate Govt of India Institution. After NIT Act, 2007 the employees of the erstwhile Karnataka Regional Engineering College became employees of NITK. In fact, the NITK CHAIRMAN of the Board of Governors is the same person who was the Chairman of the erstwhile Karnataka Regional Engineering College.
All the Members of the Board of Governors of NITK are the same members of the erstwhile Karnataka Regional Engineering College.
Mangalore University is different from NITK. Mangalore University employees didn't become NITK Employees. So, it is from NITK Funds that the NITK Faculty got Compensation and not from Mangalore University Funds.
Dr P N Singh was the FIRST NITK Principal and he was the one who signed on his MARKS SHEETS to state that he got 22 Marks in the Original Evaluation and 48 on Revaluation.
Mangalore University gives Answer Sheets only to AUTHORIZED Personnel for evaluation.
So, NITK must disclose all their documents that show the names of the Faculty whom the NITK Admin authorized to evaluate answer sheets for the Dec 1998, June 1999, Oct 1999 & Dec 1999 evaluations of Mangalore University Answer Sheets for the Irrigation Design & Drawing Subject and to whom NITK Custodian of Funds sanctioned compensation using Taxpayer money.
3Mangalore University has said that they 'lost' the Documents that they hold. (attached) (in reply to RTI Application No. NITST/R/E/20/00016) He further contested that the NITK Faculty know his handwriting as they have with them the homework / in-class Drawing Sheets that contain the handwriting/drafting style of answer sheets.
So, irrespective of coding of answer sheets, the fact is that the stalkers know the handwriting based on the in-class assignments that the stalkers get to keep with them.
He contested that merely documentation and process was managed by MU just like outsourcing. But the NITK Faculty did the Evaluation. The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply dated 04.09.2019 and the FAA's order dated 18.10.2019. He further submitted that the appellant is a student who passed out of the then Karnataka Regional Engineering College(KREC). He further submitted that during the year 1999 the KREC was affiliated to Mangalore University. On a query by the Commission he submitted that Mangalore University is a State university which comes under the Government of Karnataka.
Professor Nityananda Shetty, Dean (Academics) submitted that during that period Mangalore University was centrally conducting examinations and was monitored by the Controller of Examinations. Moreover due to coded evaluation, the Examiners would not know the name of the candidates and Mangalore University is the right authority to provide the information to the queries of the appellant.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that a common reply was given to all the above RTI applications, which read as follows:
"The information sought is not held by the public authority. The required information may be sought from the Mangalore University under which this Institute was a constituent college."
The FAA also passed a common order in all the four first appeals and had held as follows:
"Decision:
With regard to the above mentioned appeal, it has been noted that, the information requested has already been provided to the appellant.4
Order:
The decision of the CPIO with regard to the information sought is upheld."
The appellant's written submissions were very lengthy and covered all sorts of issues that are not directly related to the main issue. On a query to clarify the limited information sought, the appellant clarified that his marks were increased substantially on re-evaluation from 22 mark to 48 marks and he wanted to know who was responsible for this lapse and what action was taken on this. It appears from the averments of the respondent that the examination body was Mangalore University in the year 1999-2000. Moreover, the CPIO, NITK cannot be forced to create information, they can only provide the information sought if it is available. By his own admission in second appeal, the appellant mentioned that he submitted 190 CPGRAM grievances against NITK to MHRD. The Commission is afraid that the appellant is only exhausting the resources of the Government. Instead he should approach the Mangalore University which is a state authority for a clear and categorical reply regarding his queries. The Commission is not in a position to help the appellant due to the fact that the Mangalore University is a state University and not within the jurisdiction of CIC.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the appellant is advised to exercise his right to information wisely and judiciously and approach the State University for information as per RTI Act.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 5