Central Information Commission
Mr.Harishankar Panday vs Indira Gandhi National Open University ... on 25 March, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000473/11661
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000473
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Harishankar Pandey
Q. NO. M/267,
Barwani Colony N.C.L.,
PO: Bina Projects,
Distt: Sonbhadra - Uttar Pradesh
Respondent : Dr. D. C. Sharma
Public Information Officer & Dy. Registrar Indira Gandhi National Open University Student Evaluation Division (Established Section) Maidan Garhi, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 30/04/2009 PIO replied : 27/07/2009 First appeal filed on : 19/08/2009 First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned Second Appeal received on : 19/02/2010 Sl.: Information Sought: PIO's reply:
1. Copy of the answersheet of subject code For getting photocopies of the answersheet one has no. CS-60 and CS-70 for December - to apply within 45 days of declaration of result. IN 2008 having roll no. 054060822. this case 45 days are already over.
2. What is purpose and meaning of "Less Information will be sent to you after collecting Exam Fee Paid". from different sections.
3. What is the complete process of If application for reevaluation is receipt within Reevaluation? time. Answersheets are sent for reevaluation after hiding original marks. Again after reevaluation whichever mark is greater is reflected in the record.
PIO SED replied on 24/08/2009 to query-2 as follows:
Less Examination fee:- It means you have not paid fee for Rs.50/- per course for Term End Examination i.e. if you have opted 4-cources one course opted in result awaited column and you have paid only Rs.200/- demand draft that means at the mean time, you are failed in awaited subject then you have to pay Rs.50/- which is less fee as according to examination fee schedule.
First Appeal:
Information on query-01 has not been provided. Complete information on query-3 has also not been provided because after reevaluation my marks were reduced to 19/75 whereas the originally it was 26/75. Whereas the PIO is stating that greater marks are reflected.
Order of the FAA:
Not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Complete information was not provided. Information on query-01 was denied. Information on query-3 is contradictory to what PIO is stating.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Dr. D. C. Sharma, Public Information Officer & Dy. Registrar;
It appears that information on records has been provided to the Appellant by the PIO. The PIO states that the answer scripts are disposed of after one year and hence it is not possible to give the answersheets of the Appellant since it has been disposed of as per the rules. The Appellant has pointed out that as per the information provided to him his marks were 26/57 before reevaluation and 19/75 after reevaluation. Hence as per the rules the marks reflected in the marksheet should be the higher marks i.e. 26/75 in the instant case. The Commission directs the PIO to look into this and correct this if appropriate.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
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 25 March 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SM)