Central Information Commission
T Anisha Kala vs Pondicherry University on 19 November, 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
File no.: - CIC/PONDU/A/2019/110397
In the matter of:
T Anisha Kala ... Appellant
VS
CPIO / Assistant Registrar (Exam - Engg),
Pondicherry University, Examination Wing,
R. Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry- 605014 .... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 10/09/2018 CPIO replied on : 12/10/2018 First appeal filed on : 04/12/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 28/12/2018 Second Appeal dated : 06/02/2019 Date of Hearing : 17/11/2020 Date of Decision : 17/11/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Govind Swamy, Asst. Registrar & CPIO present through video conference.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought a certified true copy of his/her answer sheet duly evaluated by the examiners of Pondicherry University for the exam held on 14/05/2018 at Dr. BR Ambedkar Institute of Technical Edu., Port Blair. Subject name- Automata Languages and Computation, subject code: CST 43, Semester:
4th Semester, year: 2nd Year, Enrolment no- 13TDL076, Name: T Anisha Kala.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The Appellant did not avail of the opportunity of attending the hearing despite due service of notice vide speed post no. ED500770594IN dated 28.10.2020.
The CPIO submitted that the appellant was invited to inspect the records, accordingly she did the same as per the FAA's order dated 18.12.2018 and a final reply was also sent on 12.11.2018 informing her that the answer script has already been evaluated twice by two different examiners. Further, her request for 3rd valuation of answer script is not feasible of compliance. He furthermore stated that now the academic council has decided to review the relevant resolution to determine whether similar requests seeking copies of answer scripts can be acceded to in the future, however, the decision of the academic council has not yet been finalised.
The Commission remarked that the Respondent University cannot deny the Appellant a copy of her own answer scripts as it is against the principles of natural justice, moreover, whatever academic council resolution is being referred to by the CPIO stands overridden by Section 22 of the RTI Act which provides that- "The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."
Observations:
The Commission observes that the pendency of the academic council decision with respect to the averred resolution which was relied upon by the CPIO to deny a copy of the answer script to the Appellant has no bearing, whatsoever, on the fate of the instant case.
Nonetheless, during the pendency of the decision in the matter, the registry attached with this bench placed an intimation received from the Appellant dated 17.11.2020 on record, sent shortly before the hearing, wherein she has stated the reasons for her inability to attend the hearing. She has further stated therein that her issue has been resolved and she wants to withdraw the instant Appeal.
Decision:
In view of the intimation received from the Appellant, the Commission closes the instant case without ordering for any relief. However, the CPIO is advised 2 to take note of the remarks made by the Commission during the hearing regarding the binding nature of Section 22 of the RTI Act for future guidance.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3