Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Siddhant Jain vs University Grants Commission on 13 March, 2026

                              के ीय सू चना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                           बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067


 File No: CIC/UGCOM/A/2025/608704

 Siddhant Jain                                          .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम

1. The CPIO
   UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
   RTI CELL, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
   NEW DELHI -110002

2. THE CPIO
   MAHARAJA CHHATRASAL BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY,
   RTI CELL, POLICE LINES ROAD, PANNA ROAD,
   CHHATARPUR, M. P. - 471001               .... ितवादीगण /Respondent

 Date of Hearing                     :    09.03.2026
 Date of Decision                    :    12.03.2026

 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Sudha Rani Relangi

 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

 RTI application filed on            :    10.10.2024
 CPIO replied on                     :    14.11.2024
 First appeal filed on               :    13.12.2024
 First Appellate Authority's order   :    20.12.2024
 2nd Appeal dated                    :    Nil



 Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2024 seeking the following information:

"I am the citizen of India and I am registered in B.Sc. in Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundelkhand University Chhatarpur, whose Roll No. 22187722 and Enrollment No. 221101S0473.

I want the following information in exercise of my rights under Right to Information Act of 2005.

1. I want the photocopy of my answer sheet of Mathematics subject MJ- 1 Abstract Algebra and Linear Algebra whose Subject code is (32155) and Paper Code is (RS-960).

2. After receiving the photocopy of answer sheet, if something founds wrong in it, please provide full information as to what further action taken on it."

2. The CPIO, transferred the RTI application of the Appellant to the CPIO, Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundelkhand University Chhatarpur on 14.11.2024 stating as under:

"The online RTI request has been received under RTI Act, 2005. The required information pertains to your University; therefore, the application is being transferred to you under RTI Act, 2005 for further necessary action (copy enclosed). The information in this regard may be sent directly to the applicant. If this information not related with the university the RTI Application may be transferred to concern CPIO"

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 20.12.2024, upheld the reply of the CPIO and also transferred the First Appeal of the Appellant to the Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundelkhand University Chhatarpur.

4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Shri Siddhant Jain, present through video conference.

Respondent No. 1: Ms. Rachna Verma, US assisted by Ms. Poonam Sharma, SO, UGC, New Delhi, present in person.

Respondent No. 2: Shri Harshit, Asst. Registrar and Shri Hitesh, Asst. Registrar, Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundelkhand University, present through video conference.

5. Written statement filed by CPIO, UGC is taken on record.

6. Respondent No. 1 relied on her written statement and stated that the information sought by the Appellant pertains to the MAHARAJA CHHATRASAL BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY, therefore, the RTI application under reference was transferred to the concerned CPIO of the University under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for providing the information directly to the Appellant.

7. Respondent No. 2 averred that during pendency of this Second Appeal, the answer sheet as sought by the Appellant was provided to him vide letter dated 02.05.2025. Further, the query raised by the Appellant at point No. 2 of RTI application is speculative in nature which is outside the ambit of Section 2

(f) of the RTI Act, hence, Respondent No. 2 expressed their inability to provide information to point No. 2.

8. On being pointed out by the Bench, the Appellant affirmed the receipt of answer sheet as sought for at point No. 1 of RTI Application, however, he contended that upon receipt of the same he noticed a certain anomaly in evaluation of his marks. As per the version of the Appellant, his original marks awarded to the concerned subject was raised from 9 to score 11 without any checking or correction with a pen. Appellant was under the impression that had any opportunity of re-evaluation of paper be afforded to him then there was every possibility that he would have scored better marks and could have passed the exam without opting for appearing in the supplementary exams. Appellant further stated that in this regard, he visited the office of controller of exams but did not get any fruitful response. He sought intervention of the Commission on this issue.

9. On oral suggestion of the Bench, the Appellant agreed to file written representation before the CPIO addressing the issue as raised during hearing and the CPIO volunteered to look into the matter as per the extant norms. Decision:

10. Heard the parties.

11. On perusal of records and considering the facts of the instant Appeal, the Commission noted that the information furnished by Respondent No. 2 adequately served the purpose of Appellant filing the instant Appeal, in terms of the RTI Act, 2005.

12. Further, even though the issue flagged by the Appellant regarding non- revelation of his answer sheet is a matter of grievance, however, it is felt necessary as per the discussions held in the hearing, and in the interest of justice, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Appellant to file a written statement before the Commission with a copy served to the CPIO, Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundelkhand University addressing the issue regarding re-valuation of his subject answer sheet within one week from today. CPIO, Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundelkhand University take necessary action as per the prescribed norms and intimate the action taken report to the Appellant, free of cost within four weeks from the date of receipt of written statement, under intimation to the Commission.

13. This window is open for the Appellant for two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which it will be treated as closed.

The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Siddhant Jain Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)