Central Information Commission
Arjun Chawla vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 23 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOJK/A/2023/123833
Shri Arjun Chawla. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO and Jt Registrar, University of Jammu, UT ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
of Jammu and Kashmir
Date of Hearing : 20.08.2024
Date of Decision : 20.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.01.2023
PIO replied on : 13.04.2023
First Appeal filed on : 03.03.2023
First Appellate Order on : 03.04.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint admitted on : 12.06.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.01.2023 seeking information on following 23 points:-
"1. Inform the applicant about the scheme, procedure, criteria and rationality in awarding marks to a law student and inform me about the criteria laid down of the same and whether the schemed, procedure, guideline, criteria was approved by Bar Council of India as well as by University Grants Commission? If yes who has suggested the criteria, scheme, procedure, guideline and rationality suggested in the university in the law deptt, in the law school and finally by virtue of whom in the law deptt., law school or in the university the same were approved by whom and when? Provide me certified copy of approval of approving authority with rounded seal and stamp of the office along with certified copy of minutes of meetings when this issue about setting and implementing and laying down scheme, procedure, criteria, rationality where such issue agenda was discussed in the meeting before the committee and whether the same has been presented before Bar Council of India Legal Education Committee for it's approval under law? If there is no criteria, rationality, guideline, scheme, procedure fixed yet then inform about as to how the evaluators comes to a conclusion while awarding marks in evaluation and in re evaluation both.
Etc."
The CPIO, Joint Registrar, Evaluation Professional, University of Jammu vide letter dated 13.04.2023 replied as under:-
"This has reference to letter No.PIO-I/JU/23/776 dated:-10-04-2023 regarding information sought under J&K RTI Act 2009 of Point 07 by Arjun Chawla regarding highest marks secured in subject Code No.202 of LL.B 3 Years, 3rd Page 1 of 3 Semester. In this connection, it is submitted that Tahir Hussain bearing Roll No. 22066/LDUT/20 of department of Law, University of Jammu, has secured highest marks in subject code No. 202."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.03.2023. The FAA, Registrar vide order dated 03.04.2023 stated as under:-
"Point 1, Observation & Direction: No such fixed procedure / criteria, however, it is the wisdom of the examiner for awarding marks to the students on the basis of performance of the students.
Point 2, Observation & Direction:-Copy of answer script has already been provided to the appellant showing the details of marks awarded before the re- evaluation. However, w.r.t marks awarded after re-evaluation, the PIO-I is directed to procure the copy of answer script from the concerned section (if available) and supply to the appellant.
Point 3, Observation & Direction:-Desired information has already been provided in shape of photocopy of answer script.
Point 4 & 5, Observation & Direction:-Detailed information alongwith a copy of Question Paper as desired has been provided to the appellant by the PIO/ deemed PIO vide No.Eval/Prof/1/23/543-44 dated 17.02.2023.
Etc."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Dr Raj Kumar, CPIO The Appellant at the outset stated that the first appeal was incorrectly decided without granting him an opportunity of hearing and that the information sought was not provided to him. He referred to para 42 and 43 of his Second Appeal and stated that question wise/ sub question marks obtained by him was not provided by the Respondent. In support of his arguments, the Appellant referred to the earlier decisions of the Commission in CIC/OK/A/2007/01484 decided on 11.04.2008.
Dr Raj Kumar stated that similar information was sought by the Appellant in another RTI application which was under consideration before the Commission in Second Appeal No CIC/CUJMU/A/2023/124427/UTOJK decided on 12.08.2024. He submitted that they have taken cognizance of the directions passed by the Commission in the said matter and are already taking steps to comply with the said order. He also stated that it is their intention to provide as much information as permissible for disclosure under the RTI Act and that any further direction by the Commission will be suitably complied with.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs Dr Raj Kumar, CPIO to re-examine the RTI Page 2 of 3 application and provide point wise information as per available records to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. While giving a revised response, the CPIO is directed to ensure that any information that is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1)/ 9 of the RTI Act, 2005 is not disclosed.
The Commission also re-iterates its observations made in Second Appeal No CIC/CUJMU/A/2023/124427/UTOJK decided on 12.08.2024 wherein a reference was made to the OM issued by the DoP&T OM No 10/1/2013- IR dated 06.10.2015 the relevant extracts of which are as under:
"2. In addition, wherever the applicant has requested for 'certified copies' of the documents or records, the CPIO should endorse on the document "True copy of the document/record supplied under RTI Act", sign the document with date, above a seal containing name of the officer, CPIO and name of public authority."
Dr Raj Kumar, CPIO is therefore directed to also comply with the above DoP&T OM and supply the documents endorsing "True copy of the document/record supplied under RTI Act", with signature, date, seal containing name of the CPIO and name of public authority.
The FAA and Registrar, University of Jammu is also directed to ensure that an opportunity of hearing is invariably given to all Appellants in future before a first appeal is decided by the FAA.
The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)