Central Information Commission
Budala Sivaiah vs Agricultural Scientists Recruitment ... on 16 October, 2023
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/AGSRB/A/2023/642568
BUDALA SIVAIAH ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Agricultural Scientists
Recruitment Board (ASRB),
Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan-I,
Pusa New Delhi-110012 ..... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13/10/2023
Date of Decision : 13/10/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/06/2023
CPIO replied on : 20/07/2023
First appeal filed on : 27/07/2023
First Appellate Authority order : 25/08/2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/09/2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.06.2023 seeking following information:1
"Sub: Seeking ARS-2021 Mains evaluated answer sheet and its certified copy from RTI Reg.
This is Sivaiah Budala (Ph.D Student in Animal Biochemistry) working at SRS, ICAR- NDRI, Bengaluru. It is to inform you that want to seek Re-evaluation (Inspection, Re-totaling, Re- assessment) of ARS Mains 2021 answer sheet and to get its certified photocopy from ASRB through RTI act, 2005."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 20.07.2023 stating as under:
"The applicant may refer to the point no. 3 (vi) of Annexure IX of the ARS Examination 2021 - notification which states that "There is no provision of re-evaluation of the answer script and therefore, no request for re- evaluation of the answer script will be entertained. The Board will not enter any correspondence in this regard.
Further, in view of decision taken by AIIMS which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgement dt 28.05.2012 in LPA no. 487/2011 titled AIIMS vs Vikrant Bhuria and the decision taken by CIC vide its decision no. CIC/SH/A/2016/001485 dated 27.02.2017 and CIC/SH/A/2016/001261 dated 28.02.2017, the information cannot be provided."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.07.2023. FAA's order, dated 25.08.2023, concurred with the reply of the CPIO, hence no further intervention required in the matter.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Rual Thomte, CPIO present in person.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and submitted that till date no information was provided to him by the Respondent.2
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 20.07.2023, they have categorically informed the factual position in the matter to the Appellant that "There is no provision of re-evaluation of the answer script and therefore, no request for re-evaluation of the answer script will be entertained. The Board will not enter any correspondence in this regard".
The Respondent further apprised the Commission that w.r.t the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 26227 of 2022 filed by the Appellant, they have filed an appeal before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka challenging the order dated 21.08.2023 passed in said Writ Petition. Therefore, the present subject-matter is sub-judice before the Court.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and upon perusal of records, observes that the Respondent has wrongly not furnished information on his RTI application. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that there is no provision for re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidates.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
The Commission further observes that the submissions made by the Respondent during the hearing does not reflect in the latest written submissions filed by him. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Commission directs the Respondent to submit their revised written submissions which shall include their latest factual position in the matter. A copy of the same should also be given to the Appellant free of cost. The above directions of the Commission should be complied within a period of 3 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स%यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4