Central Information Commission
Mr.Naresh Khatri vs Vijaya Bank on 8 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. . CIC/SM/A/2010/001524/SG/14482
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001524/SG
Appellant : Mr. Naresh Khatri,
Plot No.-577 Defence
Colony Chopasni Road Jodhpur -342010
Rajasthan
Respondent :Shri KRR Pai Dy. General Manager,
Vijaya Bank
41/2, MG Road,
Bangalore- 560001
RTI application filed on : 03/06/2010
PIO replied : 19/06/2010
First Appeal filed on : 12/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 14/08/2010
Second Appeal filed on : 27/10/2010
Information sought:
Four Information were sought:
1. Certified copy of the OMR sheet and
2. Key of Question Paper
3. Marks Secured in written Exam by the by First and last successful candidate (of Rajasthan)
4. Subject wise marks secured by the candidate in the Examination Reply of PIO:
1. Confidential in nature hence rejected.
2. Confidential in nature hence rejected.
3. Information Provided
4. Information Provided Grounds for First Appeal:
1. The PIO Reply regarding Info. No. 1&2 is without mentioning any of the clauses of Sec 8(1) not providing the Information.
2. The Information No.4 is not provided in the format sought for by the appellant.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The documents (OMR Sheet, Key of Question Paper and number of correct and wrong answers in each section) relating to the written examination are in possession of their recruiting agency M/s IBPS Mumbai and are in correspondence with them and communicate to appellant when the reply is received.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
1. Not providing Information as per RTI Act Sec. 7(1), 7(9) & 8(1).
2. Dishonoring the decisions of Hon'ble CIC already pronounced in similar cases.
3. Refusing Information without mentioning germane reasons.
4. Information not provided within time Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a perusal of the papers it appears that the PIO has refused to give the information sought by the Appellant in query- 1 & 2 by stating that the information is confidential and hence cannot be given. No exemption has been claimed as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority(FAA) has however stated that the information is with their recruiting agency M/s IBPS Mumbai. It is a responsibility of the public authority to ensure that the information which is in its control should be obtained from any third party to whom they may have outsourced a job. The Commission also notes that as per the full bench decision of the Commission in Complaint No. CIC/WB/C2006/00223; Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394; CIC/OK/A/2006/00266/00058/00066/00315 on 23/04/2007 it has been stated in para 40 & 41 that institutions whose sole job is not conducting exams like Universities would have to disclose answersheets and particularly OMR Sheets would have to be provided. The Supreme Court has also not recently ruled that all answersheets have to be disclosed. The PIO has not advanced any exemption clause for denying information at query-2.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on query 1 & 2 to the Appellant to the Appellant before 05 October 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 08 September 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (AM)