Central Information Commission
Azad Ansari vs Central University Of Punjab on 16 July, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 305, 3rd Floor, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067, website:cic.gov.in
Appeal No.: -CIC/CUOPJ/A/2017/609288-BJ
Appellant : Mr. Azad Ansari
Respondent : CPIO,
Central University of Punjab,
City Campus, Mansa Road,
Bathinda-151001
Date of Hearing : 13.07.2018
Date of Decision : 16.07.2018
Date of RTI application 25.07.2017
CPIO's response 21.08.2017
Date of the First Appeal 30.08.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 06.10.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.12.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought photocopy of the assignment paper submitted by him in the First Semester of paper no-602 Computer Application for Roll no. as mentioned in the RTI application.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 21.08.2017 stated that the information sought by the Appellant was very old therefore no record was available with them. Dissatisfied with the reply, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 06.10.2017 concurred with the CPIO's response. HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Azad Ansari through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, AR through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the information sought by him had not been provided. In its reply, the Respondent stated that a suitable reply had been furnished to the Appellant by the CPIO vide letter dated 21.08.2017 and the FAA had also upheld the response. Further, it was submitted that as per their record retention and destruction policy, the marked answer books (MST, Surprise test, Assignments, Practical files etc.) were disposed of, one year after the declaration of the result and the Appellant had sought for his first semester assignment paper of paper no. 602 Computer Application, which was Page 1 of 4 pertaining to the year 2015, therefore, the assignment paper of the applicant was not available on their record and accordingly a reply had been sent to him. On being queried by the Commission, whether their record retention and destruction policy was notified, the Respondent present during the hearing feigned ignorance regarding the same.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 06.07.2018 wherein while re-iterating the RTI application, reply of the CPIO/FAA, it was submitted that the information sought by the Appellant was very old and such documents were not retained for a long period. Moreover, it was submitted that the documents sought were pertaining to the year 2015 and as per the University record retention and destruction policy, the marked answer books (MST, Surprise test, Assignments, Practical files etc.) were disposed of one year after the declaration of result and the CPIO/FAA had neither concealed nor denied any rightful information.
The Commission in this context refers to several decisions pertaining to disclosure of a candidate's own answer script. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Treesha Irish vs. CPIO and Ors., WP (C) No. 6352 of 2006 dated 30.08.2010 while deciding that a candidate was entitled to his own answer sheet had held as under:
21...................... The valued answer paper, if at all, can be a personal information relating to the candidate who has written the same. When the candidate applies for copy of the same, it cannot be denied to the candidate on the ground that it is personal information, insofar as, if that information would compromise anybody, it is the candidate himself/herself. The conduct of the examination for selection to the post of Last Grade officials is certainly a public activity and therefore the valuation of answer papers of that examination has relationship to a public activity of the department in the matter of selection to a higher post. A candidate writing an examination has a right to have his answer paper valued correctly and he has a right to know whether the same has been done properly and correctly. Both the public authority and the examiner have a public duty to get the valuation done correctly and properly, which is a public activity and duty. Therefore the supply of the copy of the answer paper, which is for enabling the candidate to ascertain whether the valuation of the answer paper has been done correctly and properly, has relationship to a public activity or interest.
23. There is no provision anywhere in the Act to the effect that information can be refused to be disclosed if no public interest is involved. Of course in a case of personal information, if it has no relationship with any public activity or interest, the information officer has discretion to refuse to disclose the same, if the larger public interest does not justify disclosure of such information. But on the ground of lack of public interest involved alone, the public information Page 2 of 4 officer cannot refuse to disclose the information, without a finding first that the information is personal information having no relationship to any public activity or interest. I am at a loss to understand how disclosure of the valued answer paper would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection process. If at all, it would only enhance the fairness and impartiality of the selection process by holding out to the candidates that anybody can ascertain the fairness and impartiality by examining the valued answer papers. In fact, an ideal situation would be to furnish a copy of the answer paper along with the mark lists of the candidates so that they can satisfy themselves that the answer papers have been valued properly and they secured the marks they deserved for the answers written by them. Therefore the reason given in Ext P3, by the 1st respondent, is patently unsustainable."
The Commission also refers the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 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. Moreover, the Commission felt that issues of Larger Public Interest affecting selection of meritorious candidates through a fair Page 3 of 4 and transparent selection process were raised by the Appellant during the course of hearing, hence disclosure of information was warranted.
DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Registrar/FAA, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda to enquire into the matter and furnish a suitable response in the light of the extant guidelines to the Appellant, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Copy to:
1. The Vice Chancellor, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda, City Campus, Mansa Road, Bathinda-151001
2. The Registrar, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda, City Campus, Mansa Road, Bathinda-151001 Page 4 of 4