JUDGMENT

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The challenge in this appeal is to a judgment and order dated 11th April, 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Service Bench No.7475 of 2017.

4. The only question that has arisen in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to see the answer sheets of the examination in which he participated, the examination having been conducted by the respondents.

5. According to the High Court, the appellant had no right to see the answer sheets.

6. Reliance appears to have been placed by the High Court on the provisions of section 8(1)(e) of the Right To Information Act, 2005.

7. The interpretation of Section 8(1)(e) of the Act came to be considered in Central Board of Secondary Education and Another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] .

8. In Paragraph 51 of the Report, this Court considered Question No.3 that had arisen for discussion. Question No.3 noted by this Court is as follows:

"(iii) Whether an examining body holds the evaluated answer books "in a fiduciary relationship" and consequently has no obligation to give inspection of the evaluated answer books under section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act?