Central Information Commission
Rajat Kumar Mehta vs Institute Of Chartered Accoutant Of ... on 8 October, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ICAOI/A/2017/124255
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/ICAOI/C/2017/174743
Rajat Kumar Mehra ...
अपीलकता /Appellant/complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, The Institute of Chartered ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Accountants of India, ICAI Bhawan,
New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
SA/Complain : 06.04.2017 /
RTI : 28.12.2016 FA : 26.02.2017
28.10.2017
CPIO : 24.01.2017 FAO : 27.03.2017 Hearing : 28.09.2018
ORDER
1. Shri Rajat Kumar Mehra filed a second appeal and a complaint vide case Nos. CIC/ICAOI/A/2017/124255 and CIC/ICAOI/C/2017/174743 in respect of an Page 1 of 6 RTI applications dated 28.12.2016. Both the appeal and complaint are being clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), ICAI, New Delhi seeking information on eight points pertaining to scaling in Information Systems Audit-Assessment Test (ISA-AT) examination, including, inter-alia, (i) the methodology of scaling of raw marks for ISA-AT examination, and (ii) weightage given to the Chartered Accountants who appeared in the last five ISA-AT examinations, including the one held on 24.12.2016.
3. The appellant/complainant filed an appeal/complaint before the Commission on the grounds that complete and correct information has not been provided to the appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought for by him.
Hearing:
4. The appellant/complainant Shri Rajat Kumar Mehra and the respondent Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Asstt. Secretary & CPIO, Ms. Seema Gerotra, Jt. Director & FAA, Shri Rajiv Seth, Jt. Secretary (Exams), ICAI, New Delhi were present in person.
5. The appellant/complainant submitted that the scaling methodology and the weightages given to the Chartered Accountants who appeared in the last five ISA- AT examinations has not been provided to him by the CPIO on point nos. 2 and 4 of the RTI application. Further, incorrect information has been furnished to him on point no. 7 of the RTI application stating that reply given on point no. 5 may be Page 2 of 6 referred to. However, on point no. 5 of the RTI application, the respondent has mentioned Regulation 204 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations 1988 that stipulates the power of the Council to conduct ISA-AT exam whereas, Schedule 'F' pertains to admission to ISA-AT course and passing requirements. Hence, the above provisions nowhere stipulate the power/authority of the Examination Committee to conduct the said examination. In response to a query, the appellant clarified, with regards to point no. 4 of the RTI application, that by 'weightage' he implied the marks added to the raw marks to convert it into scaled marks.
6. The respondent reiterated that in respect of point no. 1 and 2 of the RTI application, the appellant/complainant has been already informed that the marks secured by the candidates are scaled based on the marks secured by the topper. Moreover, the scaling methodology has been provided to him in response to his earlier RTI application and the same is contained in the extract of the Agenda for the 361st Meeting of the Council of the Institute. However, the appellant/complainant's query on point no. 4 is not clear. Hence, no information could be provided to him in this regard. The respondent further stated that Regulation 176 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations 1988 clearly empowers the Examination Committee to perform all the functions of the Council relating to the examinations, such as holding of examinations, admissions thereto, cancellation of an examination, appointment and selection of examiners, prescription of books for the guidance of candidates, declaration of results, etc. Hence, the CPIO in reply to point no. 5 of the RTI application has specified that the ISA-AT course is being conducted under Regulation 204 of the CA Regulations 1988 combined with the provision of the Schedule 'F' in terms of Page 3 of 6 power conferred on the Examination Committee under Regulation 176. Hence, point-wise information as per the available records has been provided to the appellant/complainant.
Decision:
Appeal- CIC/ICAOI/A/2017/124255
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the respondent could not provide information on point no. 4 of the RTI application as the query was not clear. In this regard, the Commission notes that the appellant has clarified that he had sought the marks added to the raw marks to convert it into scaled marks. The Commission observes that providing this information would lead to disclosure of raw marks. In this regard, the Commission observes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 20.02.2018 in Union Public Service Commission vs Angesh Kumar [Civil Appeal No(s). 6159-6162 of 2013] has held as under:
"(10) ....Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters."
8. In view of the above, the information sought for vide point no. 4 of the RTI application is not disclosable. The Commission, however, observes that the reply Page 4 of 6 given by the respondent to the appellant in response to point no. 7 of the RTI application is not correct. Moreover, the reply given on point no. 5 (in reference to point no. 7) of the RTI application is not clear and specific as the respondent did not mention the power/authority of the Examination Committee to conduct ISA- AT examination. The Commission, thus, finds that correct and complete information has not been provided to the appellant on point nos. 5 and 7 of the RTI application. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide information on point nos. 5 and 7 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
Complaint- CIC/ICAOI/C/2017/174743
9. The Commission observes that correct and complete information has not been provided to the complainant on point nos. 5 and 7 of the RTI application dated 28.12.2016. The Commission, therefore, directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to the CPIO, ICAI, New Delhi for explaining as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.
10. With the above observations, both the appeal and the complaint are disposed of.
Page 5 of 611. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 05.10.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India ICAI Bhawan, Indraprastha Marg, New Delhi- 110002.
2. Shri Rajat Kumar Mehra Page 6 of 6