Central Information Commission
Santanu Demuhuri vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 18 January, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CUOPJ/A/2018/168924-UM
Mr. Santanu Demuhuri
....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनतम
CPIO
Asst. Registrar (Re-Evaluation),
Panjab Univesity Chandigarh - 160014
प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.01.2021
Date of Decision : 15.01.2021
Date of RTI application 28.08.2018
CPIO's response 06.09.2018
Date of the First Appeal 07.09.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 28.09.2018
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.11.2018
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought inspection of his answer scripts for LLB 2nd Semester.
The CPIO & Assistant Registrar (Re-evaluation), vide letter dated 06.09.2018, informed that there are two remedies in the P.U. Cal Vol. III, 2016 at pages 487 to 490 is available at P.U. Website. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide order dated 28.09.2018, informed that there is Rule 17 in Chapter XXXII incorporated at page 487 to 490 in the Panjab University Calendar Vol. III 2016, to see the answer books for the candidates. There is also a provision for re-evaluation of the answer-books. Under Rule 9(i) at page 488 of the above-mentioned Panjab University Calendar, the candidate can see his/her answer-books after the declaration of re-evaluation result. The University also provides the Page 1 of 4 copies of the answer books under the RTI Act, 2005. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide the inspection of answer scripts.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Assistant Registrar (Re-evaluation)-cum-PIO through AC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation. The mobile number of the Appellant remained engage despite repeated attempts. The Respondent present during the hearing, informed the Commission that the requisite fee for the copy of answer sheet was not deposited by the Appellant and therefore, the same could not be furnished. As per the directions of the Commission, the Respondent agreed to furnish a revised reply offering inspection of answer sheet to the Appellant, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 / Rules, 2012.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 dated 09.08.2011 in the context of disclosure of a candidate's own answer script had observed the following in para 11:
"11. The definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the RTI Act refers to any material in any form which includes records, documents, opinions, papers among several other enumerated items. The term 'record' is defined in section 2(i) of the said Act as including any document, manuscript or file among others. When a candidate participates in an examination and writes his answers in an answer-book and submits it to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer-book is a document or record. When the answer-book is evaluated by an examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer-book becomes a record containing the 'opinion' of the examiner. Therefore the evaluated answer-book is also an 'information' under the RTI Act."
It was furthermore stated in para 14 of the above-mentioned judgement "The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer-books are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as they are 'information' held in its fiduciary relationship. They fairly conceded that evaluated answer-books will not fall under any other exemptions in sub section (1) of section 8. Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or take certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer-books are found to be exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act."
The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India CBSE and Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay was further relied in the judgment pronounced on 16.08.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kumar Shanu and Anr. V. CBSE in I.A. No. 01/2016 in Contempt Petition No. 9837/2016 Civil Appeal NO.6454/2011.
Page 2 of 4As regards the issue of precedence of the statutory guidelines of the Institution/ Organisation vis a vis the Rules under the RTI Act, 2005, on the matter of charging fee for availing the copies of answer sheet or its inspection, the Commission referred to the decision of the Apex Court in ICSI vs. Paras Jain in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5665/2014 dated 11.04.2019 wherein it was held as under:
"10. Thus it is clear that the avenue for seeking certified copies as well as inspection is provided both in the Right to Information Act as well as the statutory guidelines of the appellant.
11. We are cognizant of the fact that guidelines of the appellant, framed by its statutory council, are to govern the modalities of its day-to-day concerns and to effectuate smooth functioning of its responsibilities under the Company Secretaries Act, 1980. The guidelines of the appellant may provide for much more than what is provided under the Right to Information Act, such as re-evaluation, re-totaling of answer scripts.
12. Be that as it may, Guideline no.3 of the appellant does not take away from Rule 4, The Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005 which also entitles the candidates to seek inspection and certified copies of their answer scripts. In our opinion, the existence of these two avenues is not mutually exclusive and it is up to the candidate to choose either of the routes. Thus, if a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Rules therein, however, if the information is sought under the Guidelines of the appellant, then the appellant is at liberty to charge the candidates as per its guidelines."
Moreover, in a recent decision in the matter of Mradul Mishra vs. Chairman, U.P. Public Service Commission and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6723 of 2018 (Arising Out of SLP No. 33006 of 2017) dated 16.07.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had while deciding the issue as to whether the Appellant is entitled to see the answer sheets of the examination in which he participated, held as under:
"14. In our opinion, permitting a candidate to inspect the answer sheet does not involve any public interest nor does it affect the efficient operation of the Government. There are issues of confidentiality and disclosure of sensitive information that may arise, but those have already been taken care of in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay where it has categorically been held that the identity of the examiner cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality.
15. That being the position, we have no doubt that the Appellant is entitled to inspect the answer sheets. Accordingly, we direct the Respondent - U.P. Public Service Commission to fix the date, time and place where the Appellant can come and inspect the answer sheet within four weeks."Page 3 of 4
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Superior Courts, the Commission directs the Respondent to offer an inspection of the answer scripts to the Appellant, as desired by him in his RTI application, following the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and the RTI Rules, 2012, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर के राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 15.01.2021 Page 4 of 4