Appeal No.ICPB/A-3/CIC/2006
February 10, 2006
Name of appellant :
Shri
D.S. Meena
Name of public
authority : CPIO, North
Western Railways
DECISION
Decision appealed against:
The appellant, Chief Office
Superintendent, Stores Branch, G.M.’s Office, North Western Railways applied
to CPIO on 13.10.2005 seeking for photo copies of answer booklets of himself and
successful candidates in the selection
of AMM Group ‘B’ 70% quota NWR held on 9.7.2005 and also for a copy of the
answer key. The CPIO by a communication dated rejected the request for copies of
the answer booklets invoking the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (g) of RTI
Act. stating “Answer sheets of written examination is very confidential
document based on which performance of the candidates is evaluated for further
advancement in the career. In such a situation, disclosure of marks
secured by any person may lead to information
wisdom/intelligence/knowledge of the person who has evaluated the answer sheets
and who is very trustworthy for the administration and administration should not
disclose such information as disclosure will reveal the
wisdom/intelligence/knowledge of the person in general which may not be
desirable by individual personal capacity as he has got trust with the
administration that administration will keep the information confidential and
secret. Attention is also drawn towards Section 11 of the RTI Act which deals
with third party information. In this particular case, Railway Administration
has assigned the work of evaluation to a third person in his fiduciary capacity
has evaluated the answer sheets and given to the administration with confidence
that the evaluation performance by the evaluator will not be disclosed. At the
most, as part information, the result of the examination may be given which has
already been declared for information of all concerned including Shri D.S. Meena”.
Accordingly, the CPIO has declined to supply copies of the answer
booklets. The appellate authority to whom the appellant preferred an appeal has
also rejected the appeal by a communication dated 26.12.05 stating that in terms
of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, the information sought for cannot be
supplied. Hence the present appeal before this Commission.
Grounds of Appeal:
In his appeal, the
appellant has pointed out that neither the CPIO nor the Appellate Authority has
touched upon his request for a copy of the answer key.
According to him, since he has not sought for the names of the persons
who have evaluated the answer sheets, Section 8(1)(g) of Act does not apply. He
has also complained that since the information given is incomplete, in terms of
Section 20, penalty should be imposed on the CPIO.
Commission’s
Decision:
On
receipt of the present appeal, the Commission noted that the appellate authority
had disposed of the appeal with a single line of rejection without giving any
reasons for the same.
Accordingly, the Commission, by a communication dated 6.1.2006 directed
the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal by a speaking order within a
week. Till now, he has not done so. We would like to impress upon the appellate
authority that any decision of appeal should be a speaking one.
Recently,
the Commission has decided a similar issue in case of a postal employee seeking
for a copy of evaluated answer sheets in a departmental examination and the
Commission disposed of that appeal in the following terms:
“Even though in the present case, the appellant examinee is a government servant and the examination is a departmental one, yet, the appeal has raised a larger issue as to whether an examinee is entitled to have a copy of his/her evaluated answer paper in terms of the provisions of RTI Act. While the CPIO has rejected the request on the ground that no public interest is involved, the appellate authority has opined that supply of a copy of the evaluated answer paper would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection process. The appellant contends that there is no provision in the Act to deny the information on the grounds taken by the CPIO and the appellate authority. It is true that there is no provision in Section 8 of the Act specifically exempting disclosure of information relating to examination papers. Examinations are conducted for various purposes- for admission to educational institutions: for selection and appointment to a post: promotion to a higher class in educational institutions or in a job as in the present case etc. When answer papers are evaluated, the authority conducting the examination and the examiners evaluating the answer papers stand in a fiduciary relationship with each other. Such a relationship warrants maintenance of confidentiality by both of the manner and method of evaluation. That is the reason why while mark sheets are made readily available as a matter of course, copies of the evaluated answer papers are not made available to the candidates. Most of the examination conducting authorities, however comply with the request, as in the case of the Postal Department, for retotalling and for verifying whether all the answers have been evaluated. Therefore, we find that in case of evaluated answer papers, the information available with the public authority is in his fiduciary relationship, the disclosure of which is exempt under Section 8(1)(e). In addition, when a candidate seeks for a copy of evaluated answer paper, either of his/her own or others, it is purely a personal information, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public interest or activity, which of such a situation is covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the CPIO was justified in rejecting the request of the appellant for a copy of the evaluated answer paper. We, as a Commission, are not satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought for by the appellant to direct the CPIO to comply with the request of the appellant and as matter of fact we are rather of the opinion that furnishing of copies of evaluated answer papers would be against public interest as has been rightly opined by the appellate authority that supply of a copy of the evaluated answer paper would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection process.” [Case No. ICPB/A-2/CIC/2006 (available in www. cic.gov.in)]
Direction :
The
facts of the present case being similar to that above case, except that in this
case the appellant has sough for copies of the answer sheets of all other
successful candidates also, we would like to apply the above decision in the
present case also. Therefore, we find that the CPIO was justified in denying
supply of a copy of the evaluated answer sheet of the appellant. However, we
note that neither the CPIO nor the appellate authority had dealt with supply of
a copy of the answer key. If there is an answer key, we do not find any reason,
why supply of a copy of the same should not be furnished to the appellant.
Accordingly we direct the CPIO to furnish a copy of the Answer key, if any, to
the appellant within 15 days of the date of this order, under intimation to this
commission.
Let a copy of this decision be
sent to the appellant and the CPIO.
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Information Commissioner
( M. M. Ansari )
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
( P. K. Gera )
Registrar