Central Information Commission
Rajat Kumar Mehra vs Institute Of Chartered Accoutant Of ... on 8 October, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ICAOI/A/2017/124567
Rajat Kumar Mehra ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, The Institute of Chartered ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Accountants of India, ICAI Bhawan,
New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 17.01.2017 FA : 03.03.2017 SA : 09.04.2017
CPIO : 10.02.2017 FAO : 27.03.2017 Hearing : 28.09.2018
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), ICAI, New Delhi seeking information on five points pertaining to Information Systems Audit- Assessment Test (ISA-AT) Examination conducted by the Institute on 24.12.2016, including, inter-alia, (i) the number of students who passed the ISA-AT Page 1 of 6 Examination held on 24.12.2016, and (ii) copies of the question papers put to two students, CA Aditya Murarka and CA Rahul Gabhawala along with their answer sheets.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has deliberately denied the information sought for by him on point nos. 2 to 5 of the RTI application. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought for.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Rajat Kumar Mehra and the respondent Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Asstt. Secretary & CPIO, Ms. Seema Gerotra, Jt. Director & FAA, Shri Rajiv Seth, Jt. Secretary (Exams), ICAI, New Delhi were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he is satisfied with the information provided to him by the respondent on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application. However, the CPIO did not provide the copies of question papers along with their answer sheets and the raw marks awarded to the appellant, CA Aditya Murarka and CA Rahul Gabhawala as sought vide point nos. 3 to 5 of the RTI application.
5. The respondent submitted that in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 02.09.2011 in The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Shaunak H. Satya (Civil Appeal No. 7571 of 2011), the copy of the question paper put to the appellant sought by him vide point no. 3 of the RTI application cannot be provided to him. The respondent added that the raw marks sought by the appellant on point no. 5 of his RTI application cannot be disclosed to him as has been ruled Page 2 of 6 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 20.02.2018 in Union Public Service Commission vs Angesh Kumar [Civil Appeal No(s). 6159-6162 of 2013]:
"(10) ....Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters."
Moreover, the question papers and answer sheets of the two candidates, CA Aditya Murarka and CA Rahul Gabhawala, sought vide point nos. 4 and 5 of the RTI application cannot be disclosed to the appellant, being personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties. Further, the documents are held by the Institute on behalf of the examinee in a fiduciary capacity. Hence, the disclosure of information sought is exempt under Sections 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The above said view has been upheld and confirmed by the Apex Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011, judgment dated 09.08.2011) wherein it was observed:
"24. .... the examining body, if it is in a fiduciary relationship with an examinee, will be liable to make a full disclosure of the evaluated answer- books to the examinee and at the same time, owe a duty to the examinee not to disclose the answer-books to anyone else. If A entrusts a document or an Page 3 of 6 article to B to be processed, on completion of processing, B is not expected to give the document or article to anyone else but is bound to give the same to A who entrusted the document or article to B for processing. Therefore, if a relationship of fiduciary and beneficiary is assumed between the examining body and the examinee with reference to the answer- book, section 8(1)(e) would operate as an exemption to prevent access to any third party....."
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. In this regard, the Commission also notes the ISA-AT is a specialized examination and the question bank for the same is set by experts. In this context, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Vikrant Bhuria (LPA 487/2011, dated 28.05.2012) had observed as follows:
"15. ....There are few seats, often limited to one only, in such super- speciality courses and the examinees are highly qualified, post graduates in the field of medicine. Though the respondent, as aforesaid, has paid tributes to the faculty of the appellant and credited them with the ingenuity to churn out now questions year after year but we cannot ignore the statement in the memorandum of this appeal supported by the affidavit of the Sub-Dean (Examinations) of the appellant to the effect that the number of multiple choice questions which can be framed for a competitive examination for Page 4 of 6 admission to a super-speciality course dealing with one organ only of the human body, are limited. This plea is duly supported by the prohibition on the examinees from copying or carrying out from the examination hall the question papers or any part thereof. We have no reason to reject such expert view."
In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 05.10.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ICAI Bhawan, Indraprastha Marg, New Delhi- 110002.
2. Shri Rajat Kumar Mehra Page 6 of 6