Central Information Commission
Rohit Agrawal vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 24 January, 2020
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/2018/153383/02697
File no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/153383
In the matter of:
Rohit Agrawal
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Central Board of Secondary Education
Regional Office - Dehradun, 99, Kaulagarh Road,
Dehradun - 248 001, Uttrakhand
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 06/08/2018 CPIO replied on : 08/08/2018 First appeal filed on : 09/08/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 17/08/2018 Second Appeal dated : 22/08/2018 Date of Hearing : 23/01/2020 Date of Decision : 23/01/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: S K Agrawal, representative of the appellant, present in person Respondent: Nutan Bhalla, Assistant Secretary & CPIO, present over VC.
Information Sought:
The appellant (Roll No. 5393992) appeared for class - X CBSE Board examination. He also undergone for re-evaluation of his answer sheet. In this connection he has sought the following information:
1. Copy of the re-evaluation report (all pages) of the subject experts in which 07 marks have been considered for enhancement.
2. Copy of the approval of competent authority for enhancement of the marks.
1Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that denial of the information u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act is not appropriate as he has got copies of re-evaluated answer sheets of some other papers from the same organisation and this information should be provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought by the appellant contains personal information of the invigilators and hence cannot be provided to the appellant as the same is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO was highly improper as information was denied u/s 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act without suitably supporting this action. The CPIO should note that it is a settled principle that any candidate is entitled to seek a copy of his answer sheet which also covers re-evaluated answer sheets. The submissions of the CPIO that since the re-evaluated answer sheet contains personal information of the invigilators, it cannot be provided is also not justified as any personal information of the invigilators or the examiners including the names and signatures can be severed from the re-evaluated paper u/s 10 of the RTI Act. Hence, the present CPIO is directed to provide complete information to the appellant after masking any personal information which stands exempted..
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to provide complete information to the appellant as sought by him in his RTI application and any third party information may be severed u/s 10 of the RTI Act. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The CPIO should note that in an event of her failure to provide the requisite information to the appellant within the time mentioned above, the CPIO will be open for penalty under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act.2
File no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/153383 The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु 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 3