Central Information Commission
Ratnakar Shrikant Singh vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 23 May, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/101921/00710
File no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/101921
In the matter of:
Ratnakar Shrikant Singh
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
CBSE Shiksha Kendra,2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi - 110092
&
The PIO, CBSE, Regional Office,
1630 - A, J- Block, Anna Nagar (West),
Chennai - 600040
... Respondents
RTI application filed on : 28/08/2017 CPIO replied on : 22/09/2017 First appeal filed on : 09/10/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 15/11/2017 Second Appeal dated : 05/01/2018 Date of Hearing : 22/05/2019 Date of Decision : 22/05/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present through VC
Respondent: Shri R Venkatesh, Deputy Secretary & CPIO, CBSE.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. A copy of the answer sheet of Comm. Sanskrit of Miss. Manishita Ratnakar Singh, who appeared in the 10th standard examination held in the Academic 1 Year- 2016-17 with Roll no. 4123033 from Ryan International School Sanpada, Navi Mumbai.
2. Internal Assessment marks forwarded by the Ryan International School to CBSE in the subject Comm. Sanskrit.
3. Reasons to grant Grade- A2 in Summative Assessment, though marks obtained in the said subject is 94.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that misleading and incorrect information has been provided to him and no reply has been provided on point no 2 of the RTI application. He further submitted that the FAA's order dated 15.11.2017 is also incorrect stating that the desired information cannot be provided as per section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. To substantiate his argument, he relied on para 22 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CBSE & Anr Vs Aditya Bandhopadyay, Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011 dated 09.08.2011. The relevant para is extracted below:
In a philosophical and very wide sense, examining bodies can be said to act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to students who participate in an examination, as a government does while governing its citizens or as the present generation does with reference to the future generation while preserving the environment. But the words `information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship' are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to 2 File no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/101921 business dealings/transaction of the employer. We do not find that kind of fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examinee, with reference to the evaluated answer-books, that come into the custody of the examining body.
He also submitted that there has been a delay of 02 years in providing a reply to point no 2 and by doing this they are harassing the parents unnecessarily.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant on 22.09.2017 which was also upheld by the First Appellate Authority.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the averments put forth by both the parties, it is noted that the CPIO has provided a proper reply to all the points in the RTI application except on point no 2. With regard to point no 2, the appellant has sought the internal assessment marks forwarded by Ryan International School to CBSE in the subject Comm. Sanskrit and the same could have been provided to the appellant at the relevant time. The CPIO share the information but the appellant desired the same in writing.
The appellant has also rightly pointed out that the order of the FAA claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act is wholly misplaced and irrelevant. The FAA seems to be ignorant of the landmark judgment of the Apex Court as far as the disclosure of the answer sheet is concerned.
Decision:
Based on the above observations, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply on point no 2 of the RTI application as per the query raised to the appellant within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
A warning is also issued to the CPIO to be careful in future while handling RTI applications and to ensure that complete replies are given to the applicants within the time stipulated under the RTI Act. The FAA is also advised to be 3 careful while claiming any exemption under the RTI Act. The present CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this order to the FAA for his necessary information.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
4