Central Information Commission
Mr.Pushpendra Singh vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 3 June, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 308, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No:CIC/RM/A/2012/000276/LS
Appellant : Shri Pushpender Singh
Public Authority : Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan
New Delhi
Date of hearing : 03.06.2013
Date of Decision : 03.06.2013
FACTS :
Heard today dated 03.06.2013. Appellant present. The public authority is represented by Dr E. Prabhakar, Jt Commissioner (Pers), KVS.
2. The matter, in short, is that the appellant had appeared in an examination conducted by KVS for the post of TGT in PET 2011-12 with Roll No.4302540220. The appellant, however, did not make the grade. Hence, vide RTI application dated 07.12.2012 he had sought the copies of the evaluated answer scripts.
3. The CPIO, vide letter dated 12.01.2012, had informed the appellant that the Supreme Court judgment regarding disclosure was not applicable in his case. The AA, in order dated 24.02.2012, had also taken the same line.
4. This appeal is directed against the above orders.
5. Needless to say, both the CPIO and AA have misconstrued the provisions of law and the ratio of Supreme Court judgment in Aditya Bandopadhyay case. Suffice to say that the order passed by the Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay case is equally applicable in the present case. Information has been wrongly denied to the appellant. Hence, orders passed by the CPIO and AA are bad in law and are set aside.
6. However, Dr Prabhakar submits that the said examination was not conducted by KVS directly. It was got conducted through EdCIL ( a PSU), On a query from the Commission, he submits that he does not know whether or not the requested information is being maintained by EdCIL till now.
7. Be that as it may, Dr Prabhakar is directed to take up the matter with EdCIL and ascertain as to whether the requested information is being maintained by them and, if yes, transmit the same to the appellant, free of cost. However, if the said information is not being maintained by EdCIL, the appellant may be informed accordingly.
8. This raises an important issue which needs to be dwelt upon in this order. The Supreme Court of India in Aditya Bandhapadyaya Vs CBSE has held that evaluated answer scripts are required to be provided to the examinees concerned. It is, therefore, necessary that the answer scripts are maintained by the public authority for a reasonable time. If the examinations are got conducted through an agency, then the public authorities are required to direct the examining bodies to maintain the answer scripts for a reasonable period of time, say, from six months to one year, for servicing the RTI Act. In view of this, the Commissioner, KVS, New Delhi, is hereby directed to take steps for maintenance of evaluated answer scripts for a reasonable period of time, say for a minimum period of six months. The rules framed by the University of Delhi in this regard may be of some help to KVS in formulating its own policy.
Sd ( M.L. Sharma ) Information Commissioner Authenticated. Additional copies of the order shall be supplied on application and payment of fees, as per RTI Act, to the CPIO of the Commission.
(K.L.Das) Dy Registrar Address of the Parties :- (l)The Jt Commissioner (Adm) & CPIO, (2) Shri Pushpendeer Singh, S/o Shri Kendriya Vidalaya Santhan, 18, Dharam Singh, Bakthawerpur (Tanda) Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Village Near Kabir Mandir, Delhi-110036 Singh Marg, New Delhi 110602