Central Information Commission
Mithilesh Kumar Mall vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 4 February, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/630470/02785
File no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/630470
In the matter of:
Mithilesh Kumar Mall
... Appellant
VS
The PIO / Asstt. Secretary(A&L)
Central Board of Secondary Education,
Regional Office - Dehradun, Kaulagarh Road,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand - 248001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 01/07/2018 CPIO replied on : 24/07/2018 First appeal filed on : 02/08/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 21/08/2018 Second Appeal dated : 04/09/2018 Date of Hearing : 03/02/2020 Date of Decision : 03/02/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Nutan Bhalla, Assistant Secretary & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the copy of revaluated answer sheets of Application Number U40110R, Roll Number 5383661 for English(Communication) having subject code 101 which was submitted online on 21 June, 2018, of her daughter Maitry Mal.
Grounds for Second Appeal The appellant did not get the re-evaluated answer sheet.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the desired information was not provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought by the appellant contains personal information of the invigilators and hence cannot be provided to the appellant as the same is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO was highly improper as information was denied u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act without suitably supporting this action. The CPIO should note that it is a settled principle that any candidate is entitled to seek a copy of his answer sheet which also covers re-evaluated answer sheets. The submissions of the CPIO that since the re-evaluated answer sheet contains personal information of the invigilators, it cannot be provided is also not justified as any personal information of the invigilators or the examiners including the names and signatures can be severed from the re-evaluated paper u/s 10 of the RTI Act. Hence, the present CPIO is directed to provide complete information to the appellant after masking any personal information which stands exempted.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to provide complete information to the appellant i.e. a copy of the re-evaluated answer sheet of his daughter and any third party information may be severed u/s 10 of the RTI Act. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The CPIO should note that in an event of her failure to provide the requisite information to the appellant within the time mentioned above, the CPIO will be open for penalty under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) 2 File no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/630470 A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3