Central Information Commission
Jayakrishnan Namboodiri V T vs Pondicherry University on 4 June, 2024
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/PONDU/A/2023/606397
Jayakrishnan Namboodiri V T ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Assistant Registrar,
Puducherry ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 14.12.2022 FA : 03.01.2023 SA : 03.02.2023
CPIO : 03.01.2023 FAO : 24.12.2023 Hearing : 21.05.2024
Date of Decision: 03.06.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.12.2022 seeking photocopies of his evaluated answer scripts (Register No: - 21MT0211) of the Regular Stream B.A/B.Sc. Examination conducted in the August 2022 session.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"It is submitted that there is no provision to issue copies of answer script.Page 1 of 8
It is further submitted that the answer sheets can be inspected by the candidate on any working day during the office hours from 9.30 am to 5.30 pm at the UG/PG section, office of the controller of Examination.
The candidate is not permitted to scan or capture pictures of the answer scripts."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.01.2023 stating as under:
"With reference to the reply previously received from the CPIO, I would like to raise a concern as I am dissatisfied with the response received as it does not specify the grounds/rules/section on which the information is being withheld. As a student studying in Mahatma Gandhi Government Arts College, Mahe (approximately 700kms away) affiliated to Pondicherry University, It would be impractical for me to travel till Pondicherry on a working day missing my classes (in view of impending examinations).
I appeal to the concerned authorities to revisit the previous decision and issue the requisite information in my favor. I reiterate my readiness to remit the fees involved in issuing the copies. Please find the enclosures along with the appeal."
4. The FAA vide order dated 24.12.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.02.2023.
6. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Mr. Birender Singh, Assistant Registrar and CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and explained that there was no denial of information per se, rather an inspection of the answer scripts as per as per the University's rules and regulations was offered to facilitate the request of the Appellant. In this regard, the Respondent further relied on an earlier decision of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2017/111788 and Appeal No. Page 2 of 8 CIC/UODEL/A/2017/170496 dated 30.10.2017. Lastly, it was submitted that as on date the answer scripts under reference are no longer available as these records are retained only for 2 years.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent observes at the outset that the CPIO appears to have not acquainted himself well with the case laws on RTI Act that have evolved over the course of time that are relevant to the instant matter. For the sake of clarity, the Commission deems it appropriate to reproduce the following relevant and operative portions of the CIC order of 30.10.2017 relied upon by the CPIO:
"...3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that the CPIO did not provide the certified copies of his answer sheets for LL.B. Sem-I under points 1 to 5 and also no satisfactory response was given to him under points 9 & 10 of his RTI application relating to inspection of his evaluated answer scripts and complete file relevant to the matter. Further, the appellant had got the mark sheet certificate but he had specifically sought certified copy of the statement of marks from the University under the RTI Act, 2005 which was not given to him till date. The appellant cited the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay allowing the students to obtain the certified copy of their evaluated answer booklet as well as inspection of the same under the RTI Act, 2005 (Section 22 of the Act) and not as per the University's rules/bye-laws. In fact, the Apex Court in its contempt order dated 16.8.2016 in Kumar Shanu vs. YSK Seshu Kumar, Chairman CBSE [Contempt Petition (C) D No. 9837/2016] directed CBSE to "scrupulously observe the directions of the court in Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011 and the Rules framed under the Right to Information Act, 2005."
4. The respondent submitted that the CPIO, vide reply dated 7.4.2016, informed the appellant that the University had a mechanism/procedure in place for disclosure of evaluated answer scripts to the students who were desirous of obtaining the same and that the application form and rules in this regard were already available on the University's website. The respondents added that the facts of Aditya Bandopadhaya's case (supra) did not apply to the appellant's case since the respondent authority did not deny the requested Page 3 of 8 information but, the appellant was only required to follow the prescribed procedure in order to obtain the evaluated answer scripts. Further, query of the appellant under points 9 & 10 relating to inspection of the relevant files and for being provided with further necessary documents relating to the LL.B. examination was vague as the appellant did not specify any particular document in his RTI application. In any case, allowing inspection of the files to the appellant would also tantamount to giving information and no formal procedure as such was in place for allowing inspection of any document/record/file. The respondents also cited the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Registrar of Companies & Ors vs. Dharemendra Kumar Garg & Ors [W.P.(C) 11271/2009], decided on 01.06.2012 in which matter the Hon'ble High Court had held that 'information' u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 does not include within it such information in respect of which there is a statutory mechanism evolved, (independent of the RTI Act) and University of Delhi vs. Abner Ingty [W.P.(C) 1873/2016, decision dated 10.8.2017] wherein the High Court had set aside the decision of this Commission to provide access to answer sheets to the students as per the rules laid down under the RTI Act, 2005 and remanded the case to the CIC to consider afresh after the decision is rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Institute of Companies Secretaries of India v. Paras Jain : SLP(C) No. 12692/2014. Additionally, no records were available with the University as to the list/names of the students who gave the examination in Hindi medium under points 7 & 8.
5. On hearing both the parties and perusing the available records, the Commission observes that the matter regarding whether or not Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005, overrides the University's bye-laws/rules/regulations involves the issue, "whether executive instruction, issued in violation of the statutory rules under the RTI Act, 2005 could override the statutory rule". In this context, the Commission noted that similar issues involving the matter of charging fees on answer scripts as per executive instruction has been pending before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ICSI v. Paras Jain, SLP (C) No. 12692/2014. The Hon'ble court, vide order dated 09.05.2014, had stayed the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA. 275/2014 dated 26.04.2014 wherein, the demand of the respondents from the petitioner to pay a fee of Rs. 500/- per subject/answer book copy was held not to be sustainable and the High Page 4 of 8 Court declared that the appellant shall be charged fee as per Rule 4 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005, for obtaining the copy of answer sheets. The full bench of this Commission in the case of Shri Jugal Kishore vs. University of Delhi (File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000512/LS, CIC/RM/A/2012/000540/LS, decision dated 29.05.2014) is also of the view that no decision can be given by this Commission until the matter in question is decided by the Hon'ble Court. In view of the above, it is in the interest of justice to adjourn the matter till the relevant principle i.e., whether the public authority is entitled to fix charges for supplying copies of answer sheets sought for by RTI seekers, is finally settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court."
Now, subsequent to staying the operation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in in LPA. 275/2014 dated 26/04/2014 in ICSI v. Paras Jain, SLP (C) No. 12692/2014, reference to which is contained in the averred CIC order relied upon by the Respondent in the instant matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide a judgment dated 11.04.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 5665/2014 observed and held as under:
"1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.04.2014 of the Delhi High Court wherein, while allowing the Letters Patent Appeal, filed by the respondent herein, it set aside Guideline No.3 notified by the statutory council of appellant-Institute of Companies Secretaries of India and directed it to charge fee prescribed as per Rule 4 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent appeared in the final examination for Company Secretary conducted by the Appellant in December, 2012. On being unsuccessful in qualifying the examination, the respondent made an application under the Right to Information Act for inspection of his answer sheets and subsequently, sought certified copies of the same from the appellant. The appellant thereafter has demanded Rs.500/- per answer sheet payable for supply of certified copy(ies) of answer book(s) and Rs.450/- per answer book for providing inspection thereof respectively as per Guideline No.3 notified by the statutory council of the appellant. It is to be noted that the respondent obtained the said information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.Page 5 of 8
XXX
4. The short issue before us is when the answer scripts of appellant's examination is sought whether the fee prescribed under Rule 4 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 payable or that under Guideline No. 3 of the Guideline, Rules and Procedures for Providing Inspection and/or Supply of Certified Copy(ies) of Answer Book(s) to Students, framed by the Examination Committee of appellant's statutory Council at its 148th Meeting held on 14.08.2013.
XXX
10. Thus it is clear that the avenue for seeking certified copies as well as inspection is provided both in the Right to Information Act as well as the statutory guidelines of the appellant.
11. We are cognizant of the fact that guidelines of the appellant, framed by its statutory council, are to govern the modalities of its day-to-day concerns and to effectuate smooth functioning of its responsibilities under the Company Secretaries Act, 1980. The guidelines of the appellant may provide for much more than what is provided under the Right to Information Act, such as re-evaluation, re-totaling of answer scripts.
12. Be that as it may, Guideline no.3 of the appellant does not take away from Rule 4, The Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005 which also entitles the candidates to seek inspection and certified copies of their answer scripts. In our opinion, the existence of these two avenues is not mutually exclusive and it is up to the candidate to choose either of the routes. Thus, if a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Rules therein, however, if the information is sought under the Guidelines of the appellant, then the appellant is at liberty to charge the candidates as per its guidelines."Page 6 of 8
9. Taking cognizance of the above case law, it is abundantly clear that the reliance placed by the Respondent on the earlier CIC decision is misplaced and falls short of relevance when no finality was attributed to the question of disclosure of the answer scripts and it was categorically pointed out therein that the matter was being adjourned in view of the pendency of the matter before the Apex Court. The very fact of this adjournment/pendency should have necessitated the Respondent to find out the updated status in the matter and ought to have acted accordingly rather than putting forth what appears to be an evasive stance, reaffirming the obstruction caused to the Appellant's right to information. It is further irksome to note that even as the Appellant pointed out his inability to come for the inspection 700 kms away, the FAA also did not bother to review the correctness of the CPIO's reply or provide a response to the Appellant's objection to the offer of inspection by merely relying on the University guidelines etc. while completely turning a blind eye to the provisions of the RTI Act under which the First Appeal was being adjudicated upon. Now, therefore, the CPIO & FAA are hereby cautioned to ensure that the University as a public authority and particularly being an institution imparting education is aware of the evolving case laws on statutory matters such as the RTI Act to guard against causing unwarranted obstruction to the right to information of the applicants in the future. In the instant matter, the Commission is appalled to note that not just the Appellant's right to information was obstructed by the Respondent, as on date, the scope of providing access to the available information also stands negated by the fact that the Respondent has weeded out the records as per their retention policy. In the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or press for any other relief in the matter, the Commission closes the case with a strict warning and admonition issued to the Respondent.
10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 03.06.2024 Page 7 of 8 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनगल एस एस निकारा, (ररटायर्ग) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO (Under RTI Act) O/o Assistant Registrar (Admin), Pondicherry University, Puducherry- 605014
2.The FAA (Under RTI Act) Controller of Examinations Pondicherry University, Puducherry- 605014 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)