Central Information Commission
Sushant Tiwari vs University Of Delhi on 13 August, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No :CIC/UODEL/A/2020/664268
Sushant Tiwari ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
University of Delhi
RTI cell, Delhi-110007. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10/08/2021
Date of Decision : 10/08/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11/08/2019
CPIO replied on : 05/09/2019
First appeal filed on : 11/09/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 28/11/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20/02/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 11.08.2019 seeking the photocopy of his 4th term Semester exam answer sheets, held in May 2019.
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 05.09.2019 stating as follows:-
"......The applicant, if he is the concerned student, is required to do the needful and contact the Assistant Controller of examination (Revaluation) along with his photo identity proof for this purpose. The applicant may contact the Assistant Controller of Examination (Revaluation) on telephone no. 011-27666238 in this regard.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.09.2019. FAA's order dated 28.11.2019 stated as follows:-
"1. The Original Application, the First Appeal and the reply of the CPIO have been perused vis-à-vis the input provided by the deemed PIO in this matter. On perusal of the concerned file, it has been observed that the CPIO has decided the matter based on the input of the deemed PIO.
2. On perusal of the OA, input of the deemed PIO and the reply of the CPIO, it has been observed that available information has already been provided to the appellant on 05.09.2019, which included the information about process for obtaining evaluated answer scripts. Further, it is evident that the Assistant Controller of Examinations (Revaluation) was directed by CPIO to provide a copy of the evaluated answer script as sought by the applicant within 30 days of receipt of this letter, if available as per record retention schedule of the University. The applicant was to be provided a copy of 2 evaluated answer script through RTI Act in terms of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision no. 5665/2014 dated 11.04.2019 in the matter of Institute of Companies Secretaries of India Vs. Paras Jain. Fee was to be charged accordingly under information to this office.
3. However, it is not evident, if the appellant has approached Assistant Controller of Examination (Revaluation) for the purpose. Accordingly, he is again permitted to obtain his evaluated answer script by contacting Assistant Controller of Examination (Revaluation), in case it is available as per the record retention schedule within 30 days of receipt of this order.
4. The Assistant Controller of Examination (Revaluation) is required to provide a copy of Evaluated Answer Script of the appellant in terms of Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5665/2014 within 30 days after the appellant approaches him with valid ID proof, if the same is available as per record retention schedule.
Contd....
5. It is pertinent to note here that Evaluated Answer Script is personal to the student concerned and has nothing to do with public activity. Such information is exempt from disclosure as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the Evaluated Answer Script of a student can be provided to the student only on verification of his/her identity and cannot be sent through post. Therefore, it is essential for the applicant, if he is the concerned student, to contact the Assistant Controller of Examination (Revaluation). The contact numbers have already been provided.
6. A perusal of the First Appeal indicates that the appellant has filed First Appeal before receiving of the reply of the CPIO dated 05.09.2019."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied that the copy of the answer script was provided to him after much delay, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal seeking following strictures to be issued to the Respondent office:
"1. The certified copy of examination answer sheets be provided within 30 days of filing of RTI application.
2. Cumbersome procedure of verification should be done away with, and College/ University ID Cards should be accepted for seeking copies. No further Verification.
3. Copies asked for should be sent to the concerned college/centre/ department of the applicant and be given to the applicant after he/she shows ID card. So that precious time of students can be saved. And deliberate attempt by 3 university to defeat the objective of RTI Act and discouraging students from filing RTI application can be stopped."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Dr. Jwala Prasad, Assistant Registrar & CPIO along with Hem Chand Pandey, Assistant Registrar (Exam) & Deemed PIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that the CPIO failed to provide the information within 30 days from the date of receipt of the RTI Application; instead he was made to go through a tardy process of obtaining the copy of answer sheets by approaching the Exam Cell and then stipulating arbitrary time lines and pre-conditions for providing the copy of the answer sheets.
The CPIO submitted that on 05.09.2019 the Appellant was informed that copies of answer sheets are to be retrieved from the revaluation centre which may take some time but it appears that the Appellant filed the First Appeal before the receipt of the averred reply. Subsequently, the pre-requisites were fulfilled by the Appellant by paying the fees on 10.10.2019, receipt of which was received in the examination cell on 14.10.2019 and the copy of the answer scripts was duly provided to the Appellant on 23.10.2019.
Upon a query regarding the FAA's order, the CPIO submitted that unfortunately the then FAA passed away recently.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the CPIO & FAA have caused avoidable confusion in the matter by overlapping the provisions of the RTI Act with the administrative provisions applicable to the students for seeking the copy of answer scripts. It is irksome to note that even as the FAA had aptly cited the relevant Apex Court judgment in the matter of Paras Jain, observations to the effect that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is applicable in the matter and that as per the administrative rules, students are required to submit their identity proof etc. was grossly unwarranted.4
Nonetheless, as regards the delay aspect contended by the Appellant, the Commission observes that a timely interim reply was provided to him and it is also pertinent to note that the administrative process suggested to him in the reply of 05.09.2019 was only mentioned as an alternative, perhaps as a matter of abundant caution, the CPIO in her wisdom informed the Appellant about the alternate mode of accessing the answer scripts in the meantime that the answer script was being procured from the concerned Section. For the said reasons, the Commission does not find any malafides in the delay caused in the provision of the information or in the alternative remedy indicated to the Appellant.
However, the CPIO is strictly advised for future to steer clear of providing such ambiguous replies overlapping RTI Act provisions with administrative provisions and to ensure that when answer scripts are sought for under the RTI Act, the pre- requisites or timelines shall not be determined by any administrative rules but it should be entirely based on the RTI Act and RTI Rules.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5