Central Information Commission
Rahul Ranjan vs National Testing Agency on 6 October, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No :CIC/NTAGN/A/2020/667502
Rahul Ranjan ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Testing Agency, RTI Cell,
IITK Outreach Centre, C-20 lA,
8,Sector 62, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh 201309. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/08/2021
Date of Decision : 18/08/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16/01/2020
CPIO replied on : 17/01/2020
First appeal filed on : 23/01/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 20/02/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Not on record
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 16.01.2020 seeking the following information:
"This is related to UGC-NET-JRF Examination Dec, 2019. Subject- Political Science (Subject Code- 02).
I have objection with the answer of question id- 61547511428, which is option 1 with option id- 61547544553, published in answer key released on 23.12.2019 and on 31.12.2019.
As per my best knowledge and evidence, the answer of question id 61547511428 has to be option 4 with option id 61547544556. But NTA has marked it wrong, while in the first answer key released on 10.12.2019, NTA had marked option id- 61547544556 as right.
Query:- .........what evidence and sources of knowledge, NTA has changed the answer of question id- 61547511428 from 61547544556 (as per answer key released on 10.12.2019) to 61547544553 (as per answer key released on 23.12.2019 & 31.12.2019)?"
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 17.01.2020 stating as under:-
" As reflected in Final Answer Key of UGC NET December 2019 available at NTA website, the correct answer is 61547544553 of the Question ID 61547511428.
All the challenges to the Questions/Answer Key of UGC-NET December, 2019, received through online and emails were placed before the concerned Subject Experts, who finally settled such challenges. The Final Result/Answer Keys is based upon the decision of the Experts concerned and the same is available on https://ntanet.nic.in under Current Events titled Final Answer Key.
The information sought cannot be provided under section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.01.2020. FAA's order dated 20.02.2020 informed the appellant as under:-
2".............the subject matter of your RTI application is sub-Judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 839 of 2020 in which you are the Petitioner and UGC and NTA is a Respondent.
You would be informed about the response of NTA to your contentions/ 1st Appeal through the Counter Affidavit of NTA which would be filed before the Hon'ble High Court in due course, in reply to your Petition."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Binod Kumar Sahu, Joint Director & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO as the specific information sought for in the RTI Application has not been provided to him. He further insisted upon relief to be ordered in the matter for supplementing his Court case.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information sought for in the RTI Application is more in the nature of expressing conjecture rather than seeking for any specific information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and requires the CPIO to provide clarifications and deductions. For the said reasons, the factual reply provided by the CPIO is deemed to be as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Further, the issues raised by the Appellant questioning the veracity of the answers mentioned in the averred answer key are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act and the superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.3
In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."(Emphasis Supplied) While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs. Gurpreet Kaur (W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as under:4
"8. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the powers of the Commission are confined to the powers as stated in the RTI Act...."
In view of the foregoing observations, no action is warranted in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5