Central Information Commission
Kamlesh Kumari vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 18 March, 2020
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2019/645203
Smt. KamleshKumari ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/Dy. Secy. DSSSB, New Delhi ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri Vinay Kumar, SO/Secret Cell
Date of Hearing : 17.03.2020
Date of Decision : 18.03.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.05.2019
PIO replied on : 06.05.2019
First Appeal filed on : 21.05.2019
First Appellate Order on : 03.07.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : --------------
Information soughtand background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 04.05.2019 seeking information regarding Post Code 115/17, PGT (Female)on 4 points:
1. Provide answer key to the question paper Set-C of above mentioned post.
2. What is the highest merit marks and lowest merit marks of final selection candidates?
3. I request you to provide my OMR Sheet Copy (Roll No. 2460013687) for the exam held on 12.08.2018 for the same post code mentioned above.
4. How many candidates have qualified for above mentioned post code under OBC category?
[Queries are verbatim] PIO/DSSSB, vide letter dated 06.05.2019 furnished point wise reply to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 21.05.2019. FAA vide order dated 03.07.2019 upheld the reply of PIO.
Page 1 of 3Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Submission dated Nil has been received from Shri Ankit Gupta (Authorized Representative of Appellant), reiterating the aforementioned facts of the case, duly supported by various decisions of the Courts.
Both parties are present for hearing. The Respondent has placed reliance on the Apex Court's decision in the case of Angesh Kumar to deny the information with respect to OMR Sheet of the candidates. Appellant's representative claims that answer keys of SET C of PGT, Political Science for the post code 115/17 is not available on the website. Moreover owing to the fact that sometime has lapsed since the examination took place, it is claimed by the Respondent that some of the information is no longer available on OARS portal. The Appellant claims that she was unable to check the portal during the relevant point of time but is aware that she had secured above 139 marks while the cut off was 142. She doubts that she must have secured higher marks and hence in order to satisfy herself, she wants to obtain the abovementioned information.
Decision:
The Commission is not in agreement with the response of the respondent and in this context, the Commission finds it imperative to note that such queries regarding information pertaining to OMR sheets and answer keys of examination are regularly received in the form of several Second appeals, which have been dealt with by a uniform stance of the Commission, in previous decisions. The Commission draws reference to the decision dated 07.02.2020 in the case of Jagdish Maurya, relevant extracts whereof is as under: "......the decision above [in the case of Angesh Kumar] is specifically aimed at "marks in Civil Services Exam"and it has been mentioned in the order categorically that situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Thus, facts of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar (supra) case do not provide a blanket cover to deny marksheet/answersheet by all examining authorities and the above decision is distinguishable to the facts of the case at hand and ratio of the Angesh Kumar case cannot be applied to the instant case mutatis mutandis for difference of factual matrix. Since merely citing a decision is not sufficient unless they are factually akin, hence the reliance placed by the PIO on the Apex Court decision, for denial of information, is set aside since he has not been able to justify the denial of information and how the facts of the above case [Angesh Kumar] is applicable in this case..."
Merely citing a case law is not sufficient, without corroborative facts demonstrating applicability of such decision or ratio of the decision to the factual premise of another case. The respondent has failed to establish and convince the Commission as to how the facts and circumstances of the UPSC vs. Page 2 of 3 Angesh Kumar (supra) case are similar and applicable to the present case. In the instant case, the PIO has been unable to establish that denial of a request was justified based on a decision, which has little relevance in the instant case.
The provisions of RTI Act ought to be enforced strictly with a view to providing necessary information, ensuring transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities. The Commission, therefore, holds that candidates have a right to seek a copy of their own OMR sheet. It will not only contribute to transparency but also facilitate the candidates in assessing their performance.
In the light of the foregoing, the Commission hereby directs the PIO to provide Copy of applicant's OMR sheet, as sought in query no. 3, to the Appellant. During the course of hearing, the Respondent agreed to furnish questions and answer keys with respect to Set A, which is available with them, in response to query number 1. The aforementioned specific documents, should be supplied to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order and compliance report in this regard should be submitted before the Commission by 15.04.2020, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated as per law.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with the above observations and directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 3