Back
2008 Supreme(Pat) 1555
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Ajay Kr. Tripathi, J.
Bihar Public Service Commission Through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna - Petitioner
vs.
The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Information and Public Relation Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Ors. – Respondent
CWJC No. 2794 of 2008
Decided On : 22.10.2008
For the Petitioner: M/s P.K. Shahi, S. Pandey.
For the Responent-2 : M/s Lalit Kishore, Binita Singh.
For Respondent-3: Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that public authorities are obligated to furnish information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and limited exemptions apply under Section 8, with the Act having overriding effect under Section 22.
Headnote:
Right to Information - Disclosure of Question Wise Marks - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19, Section 22 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 3, Section 4, Section 8, Section 22 - The court discussed the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, emphasizing the obligation of public authorities to furnish information and the limited exemptions under Section 8. The court highlighted the overriding effect of the Act under Section 22 and concluded that the State Information Commission's direction to disclose question wise marks was within the ambit of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constitutional body, sought quashing of orders passed by the State Information Commission directing disclosure of question wise marks of an examination. The petitioner contended that there was no provision for furnishing question wise marks and relied on Supreme Court decisions to support their stand.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Information Commission's direction to disclose question wise marks was within the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It emphasized the Act's objective of transparency, accountability, and citizen empowerment, and held that the petitioner was duty bound to furnish the information demanded.
Issues: The court considered whether the State Information Commission's orders fell foul of any provisions of law, particularly the Right to Information Act, 2005, and whether the petitioner was exempted from disclosing question wise marks.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, emphasizing the obligation of public authorities to furnish information, the limited exemptions under Section 8, and the overriding effect of the Act under Section 22.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ application, holding that the petitioner had not made out a case for interference against the impugned orders under challenge.
Petitioner is a constitutional body who is seeking quashing of the ORDER :dated 5.11.2007 passed in Case No. 1271/2007-08 by the State Information Commission of Bihar whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to provide information sought for by respondent no. 3 to reveal the question wise marks of 46th Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the petitioner. Petitioner further wants quashing of the ORDER :dated 7.1.2008 passed in Case No. 3995/2007-08 which is the ORDER :in review application, rejecting their prayer and further directing them to take follow up action of providing information to respondent no. 3. The impugned ORDER :s are therefore contained in annexures 13 and 15 to the writ application.
2. The 46th Combined Competitive Examination was held by the petitioner for which an advertisement was published on 8.2.2004. Respondent no. 3, namely, Pawan Kumar Jha who appeared in the said examination being not satisfied with the result of the examination had filed an application before the Deputy Secretary of Bihar Public Service Commission (in short BPSC) for re-totaling of marks obtained by him in the mains examination. This application was received by BPSC on 13.2.2007. Subsequently he also decided to invoke the jurisdiction under Right to Information Act, 2005 by filing an application before the Public Information Officer of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar. He wanted specific information, as to the marks he had secured in each question in Chemistry Paper No. 1 and 2. He sought similar information with regard to Hindi Language and Literature as well as General Science. The application of respondent no. 3 was forwarded by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department to the petitioner, namely, BPSC. When no information came respondent no. 3 filed an appeal before the appellate authority. But nothing substantive came out of the same. When the required information did not emerge from the concerned authority, respondent no. 3 filed an appeal on 4.6.2007 before the State Information Commission under section 19 of the Right to Information Act. State Information Commission took cognizance of the matter and directed the petitioner to file appropriate reply and also furnish the information demanded by respondent no. 3. Petitioner vide letter dated 18.7.2007 informed respondent no. 3 that no candidate offering Chemistry as optional paper has been finally selected and the question of revealing marks question wise in optional or compulsory paper was considered but in view of the ORDER :dated 6.2.2007/23.4.2007 and the opinion extracted in paragraph 39 of the ORDER :passed by the Central Information Commission there was no occasion to provide break up of the marks as demanded by respondent no. 3. Petitioner also filed their reply before the State Information Commission. They took a stand that the information which could be granted to respondent no. 3 has already been furnished to him. In deliberation held by the State Information Commission they were not satisfied by the stand taken by the petitioner. Therefore, they directed the petitioner to take a decision with regard to furnishing question wise marks to respondent no. 3. Petitioner took a categorical stand that as per the rules and the terms of the advertisement of examination there is provision of re-totaling of marks only and there is no provision for furnishing question wise marks for all the papers, compulsory or optional, of the examinee who sat in the examination. They also state that there is no provision for reevaluation of answer book but only re-totaling as stand upheld by 'the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a matter which travelled from Patna High Court. The JUDGMENT : dated 6.8.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5046 of 2004 has been brought on record as annexure-10 to the writ application.
3. The BPSC in terms of the rules or procedure considered the matter in a meeting held on 31.8.2007 where they exam
