Central Information Commission
Shri Prashant Laxman Nikam vs Directorate Of Income Tax (It) on 18 September, 2009
855 Prashant Laxman Nikam Vs DIT IT 18 09 9 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2009/000855
Appellant: Shri Prashant Laxman Nikam
Public Authority: Directorate of Income Tax (IT)
(through Shri Pankaj Jindal, JDIT(Exams)
(AA); & Shri Manoj Kumar Chopra,
ADIT(Exams) & CPIO)
Date of Hearing: 18/09/2009
Date of Decision: 18/09/2009
FACTS:-
By his letter of 12/06/2008, the Appellant had requested for -
"True copies of the valued answered sheets for all the papers of the ITOs Examination, 2007 in my case under Roll No.C-12318".
2. Shri Rajesh Gupta, ADIT(Exams)(CPIO), had rejected the request of the appellant vide decision dated 31/07/2008. Shri Pankaj Jindal, JDIT(Exams)(AA), vide order dated 03/10/2008, had affirmed the decision of the CPIO. The grounds adduced by the AA in denying information to the Appellant are as follows:-
"Therefore, in respect of these examinations, the disclosure of the answer sheets shall be the general rule but each case may have to be examined individually to see as to whether disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would render the system unworkable in practice. If that be so, the disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets could be denied but not other wise. However, while doing so the concerned authority should ensure that the name and identity of the examiner, supervisor or any other person associated with the process of examination is in no way disclosed so as to endanger the life or physical safety of such person. If it is not possible to do so in such cases, the authority concerned may decline the disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets u/s 8(1)(g)(Para-40 of CIC Order)."
3. The present Appeal is directed against the orders of the CPIO and the AA.
4. Heard on 18/09/2009. Appellant not present. The public authority is represented by the officers named above. The principal submission of Shri Jindal is that the requested information cannot be provided as they are working with a very limited staff and release of this information is not practical. Besides, Shri Jindial has also relied on the CIC decision in complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2006/00223 in the case of Rakesh Kumar Singh & 855 Prashant Laxman Nikam Vs DIT IT 18 09 9 2 Ors. Vs. Lok Sabha Secretariat & Ors. wherein discretion has been left with the public authority for disclosure or non-disclosure of information in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Paras 7 & 8 of Shri Jindal's orders are extracted below:-
"7. It has to be brought on record that the Exam Division of directorate of Income Tax(IT) is entrusted with the conduct of Departmental Examinations for various levels i.e. Ministerial, ITI, ITO and Exam for Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax (Probationers). Holding these exams requires a series of steps to be taken in a time bound manner throughout the year. The Exam for ITIs/ITOs are conducted all across India at 48 centers. Thousands of candidates appear in these exams. Coordination with paper setters, printing of question papers and their dispatch followed by checking their eligibility and their previous records is handled in the directorate of income Tax (IT) with single digit staff strength. Large number of representations for re-totaling/re-valuation are received every year which are also to be handled in a time bound manner. Considering the manpower availability in the directorate and the amount of work required to be done by them, the disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would render the system unworkable in practice. Allowing candidates to inspect or take copies of their evaluated answer-scripts would open a flood-gate of similar requests from all across the country which would in turn require enormous time and labour. This would pose considerable administrative burden on the directorate which has the potential to cripple its functioning.
8. Considering the ratio of the aforesaid decision of full bench of the CIC, New Delhi, as mentioned in Para 5 and 6 above and the observations in Para 7 above, the request of the appellant for supply of copies of the evaluated answer-sheets does not merit acceptance. The 4th and 5th Ground of appeal are disposed off accordingly. Regarding 1st Ground of appeal, the CPIO has correctly held that the authority conducting the examination and the examiner evaluating the answer papers stand in fiduciary relationship with each other. Regarding 2nd and 3rd Ground of appeal the ratio of the aforesaid decision of full bench of the CIC, New Delhi as mentioned in para 5(b) to 5(d) above would be squarely applicable in the case of appellant."
5. From the above, it is noticed that the examination in question has an all India character in which thousands of candidates appear. A large number of representations for re-totaling and re-evaluation are received every year which are handled in a time-bound manner. The Examination Division of the Directorate of Income Tax has limited staff and, therefore, release of requested information is not a practical preposition.
855 Prashant Laxman Nikam Vs DIT IT 18 09 9 3DECISION
6. In our view, the Appellate Authority has issued a reasoned order. The appellant has not appeared before the Commission to contest the grounds adduced by the Appellate Authority in his order under reference. Hence, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity in the decisions of the CPIO and AA. In result, the Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Tele: 011 2671 73 53/Fax: 011 2610 62 76 Copy to:- (1) Shri Prashant Laxman Nikam, 401, Sadichha Tower, LBS Marg, Near Royal Inn Hotel, Thane(West), Maharashtra-400601.
(2) Shri Pankaj Jindal, Joint Director of Income Tax(Exams) & (AA), Directorate of Income Tax(IT), Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.
(3) Shri Manoj Kumar Chopra, Asstt. Director of Income Tax(Exams) & CPIO, Directorate of Income Tax(IT), Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.
855 Prashant Laxman Nikam Vs DIT IT 18 09 9 4 "42. However, insofar as the departmental examinees are concerned or the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committees are concerned, the Commission tends to take a different view. In such cases, the numbers of examinees are limited and it is necessary that neutrality and fairness are maintained to the best possible extent. Disclosure of proceedings or disclosure of the answer sheets not only of the examinees but also of the other candidates may bring in fairness and neutrality and will make the system more transparent and accountable. The Commission, moreover finds that the proceedings of the departmental Promotion Committee or its Minutes are not covered by any of the exemptions provided for under section 8(1) and, therefore, such proceedings and minutes are to be disclosed. If a written examination is held for the purpose of selection or promotion, the concerned candidate may ask for a copy of the evaluated answer sheet from the authority conducting such test/examination. The right to get an evaluated answer sheet does not, however, extend to claiming inspection or getting a copy of the evaluated answer sheets concerning other persons in which case, if the concerned CPIO decides to disclose the information, he will have to follow the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act."