Central Information Commission
Amit Kumar Singh vs Banaras Hindu University on 5 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/BANHU/A/2017/149412-BJ
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Assistant Registrar,
Banaras Hindu University,
Faculty of Commerce,
Varanasi-221005
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.10.2018
Date of Decision : 05.10.2018
Date of RTI application 07.04.2017
CPIO's response 06.05.2017
Date of the First Appeal 18.05.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 13/14.06.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.07.2017
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding copy of his OMR Sheet and question paper in respect of RET, 2016 examination, and interview marks scored by him along with the marks of Research Proposal in RET interview held on 25th February, 2017 etc. The CPIO, vide letter dated 06.05.2017, provided a response to the Appellant with an Interview Marks and Research Plan Proposal. Dissatisfied with the CPIOs response, the Appellant Page 1 of 5 approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 13/14.06.2017, disposed off the Appeal after considering the letter of the CPIO dated 13.06.2017.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Amit Kumar Singh through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Sudhir Kumar, AR, BHU;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that even though a reply was provided by the CPIO/ FAA, a copy of his OMR answer sheet was not provided, till date. Explaining that non-disclosure of information for more than 1 ½ years from the date of filing the RTI application was severely impacting his future career prospects; the Appellant prayed that the information be provided to him expeditiously. In its reply, the representative of the Respondent Public Authority submitted that the Appellant's grievance had to be redressed at the Department Level itself and that the Registrar of the University was not the concerned officer in the matter.
The Commission was in receipt of an e-mail from the Respondent, Assistant Registrar, Faculty of Commerce dated 22.09.2018 wherein it was submitted that the Assistant Registrar & CPIO, Faculty of Commerce, BHU had provided the information on point no. 02 to the Appellant vide letter dated 06.05.2017. Further, the FAA & Joint Registrar (Entrance Exams), BHU had disposed off the Appeal vide letter dated 13/14.06.2017. Thus, the concerned CPIO was the Assistant Registrar (Entrance Exams), Office of the Controller of Examination, BHU and not the Assistant Registrar & CPIO, Faculty of Commerce, BHU. Furthermore, vide another email dated 25.09.2018, the Asst Registrar and CPIO, Faculty of Commerce, BHU informed that the notice of hearing had been sent to Shri V.K. Jaiswal, Assistant Registrar (Entrace Examination) and CPIO, BHU to appear for the instant hearing. However, the said officers were not present during the hearing.
Having heard the matter and on perusal of available records, the Commission referred to several decisions pertaining to disclosure of a candidate's own answer script. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 had observed the following in para 11:
"11. The definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the RTI Act refers to any material in any form which includes records, documents, opinions, papers among several other enumerated items. The term 'record' is defined in section 2(i) of the said Act as including any document, manuscript or file among others. When a candidate participates in an examination and writes his answers in an answer-book and submits it to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer-book is a document or record. When the answer-book is evaluated by an examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer-book becomes a record Page 2 of 5 containing the 'opinion' of the examiner. Therefore the evaluated answer-book is also an 'information' under the RTI Act."
It was furthermore stated in para 14 of the above mentioned judgement "The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer-books are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as they are 'information' held in its fiduciary relationship. They fairly conceded that evaluated answer-books will not fall under any other exemptions in sub section (1) of section 8. Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or take certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer-books are found to be exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act."
The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India CBSE and Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay was further relied in the judgment pronounced on 16.08.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kumar Shanu and Anr. V. CBSE in I.A. No. 01/2016 in Contempt Petition No. 9837/2016 Civil Appeal NO.6454/2011. Moreover, the Commission felt that issues of Larger Public Interest affecting selection of meritorious candidates through a fair and transparent selection process were raised by the Appellant during the course of hearing, hence disclosure of information was warranted.
Moreover, in a recent decision in the matter of Mradul Mishra vs. Chairman, U.P. Public Service Commission and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6723 of 2018 (Arising Out of SLP No. 33006 of 2017) dated 16.07.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had while deciding the issue as to whether the Appellant is entitled to see the answer sheets of the examination in which he participated, held as under:
"14. In our opinion, permitting a candidate to inspect the answer sheet does not involve any public interest nor does it affect the efficient operation of the Government. There are issues of confidentiality and disclosure of sensitive information that may arise, but those have already been taken care of in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay where it has categorically been held that the identity of the examiner cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality.
15. That being the position, we have no doubt that the Appellant is entitled to inspect the answer sheets. Accordingly, we direct the Respondent - U.P. Public Service Commission to fix the date, time and place where the Appellant can come and inspect the answer sheet within four weeks."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Treesha Irish vs. CPIO and Ors., WP (C) No. 6352 of 2006 dated 30.08.2010 while deciding that a candidate was entitled to his own answer sheet had held as under:
21...................... The valued answer paper, if at all, can be a personal information relating to the candidate who has written the same. When the candidate applies for copy of the same, it cannot be denied to the candidate on the ground that it is personal information, insofar as, if that information would compromise anybody, it is the candidate himself/herself. The conduct of the examination for selection to the post of Last Grade officials is certainly a public activity and therefore the valuation of answer papers Page 3 of 5 of that examination has relationship to a public activity of the department in the matter of selection to a higher post. A candidate writing an examination has a right to have his answer paper valued correctly and he has a right to know whether the same has been done properly and correctly. Both the public authority and the examiner have a public duty to get the valuation done correctly and properly, which is a public activity and duty.
Therefore the supply of the copy of the answer paper, which is for enabling the candidate to ascertain whether the valuation of the answer paper has been done correctly and properly, has relationship to a public activity or interest.
23. There is no provision anywhere in the Act to the effect that information can be refused to be disclosed if no public interest is involved. Of course in a case of personal information, if it has no relationship with any public activity or interest, the information officer has discretion to refuse to disclose the same, if the larger public interest does not justify disclosure of such information. But on the ground of lack of public interest involved alone, the public information officer cannot refuse to disclose the information, without a finding first that the information is personal information having no relationship to any public activity or interest. I am at a loss to understand how disclosure of the valued answer paper would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection process. If at all, it would only enhance the fairness and impartiality of the selection process by holding out to the candidates that anybody can ascertain the fairness and impartiality by examining the valued answer papers. In fact, an ideal situation would be to furnish a copy of the answer paper along with the mark lists of the candidates so that they can satisfy themselves that the answer papers have been valued properly and they secured the marks they deserved for the answers written by them. Therefore the reason given in Ext P3, by the 1st respondent, is patently unsustainable."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant regarding non- receipt of any OMR Answer sheet, the Commission instructs the Registrar, BHU to inquire into the matter and provide the information to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also instructs the Registrar, BHU to seek the explanation of the delinquent officer to show cause as to why penal proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated on him/ her and forward the same to the Commission within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Furthermore, it is evident that the implementation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 is far from satisfactory. Thus, the Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned Page 4 of 5 officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Commission also directs the VC/Registrar to look into such matters and ensure that the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 were implemented in letter and spirit. It would be appropriate that the summary of all such decisions is brought to the notice of the Board of Governors of the University for their information.
The Appeals stand disposed with the above direction.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 05.10.2018
Copy to
1. The Secretary, D/o Higher Education, M/o HRD, 127-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001
2. The Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005
3. The Registrar, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005 Page 5 of 5