Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (the 'RPSC' for short) has challenged the order dated 14.10.2010, passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan Information Commission, Rajasthan Information Commission, Jaipur under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 ('the RTI Act' for short) in appeal No. 649/2010, whereby the petitioner RPSC has been directed to supply all information as required by the respondent non-petitioner Pooja Meena ('the Non-petitioner' for short).

2. Learned counsel for the RPSC submits that in so far as the non-petitioner seeks photo copies of answer sheets written by her in the RAS Examination, 2007, in the subjects General Knowledge, Political Science, Philosophy, in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Shaunak H. Satya (AIR 2011 SC 3336), the RPSC will allow the non-petitioner to inspect her answer sheets in the aforesaid papers of RAS Examination 2007.

3. Counsel submits that the marks obtained by the non-petitioner in various papers were directly loaded on the computer by scanning the answer sheets of the non-petitioner as in the case of other candidates and no separate sheet was maintained by the RPSC. As such no document as sought in this regard can be provided to the non-petitioner. It is submitted that the third requirement of the non-petitioner in the application under RTI Act effectively was that her answer sheets be rechecked and re-evaluated. It is submitted that there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets of the candidate in RAS examination, 2007, and hence no relief in this regard could be granted to the non-petitioner.

4. It is further submitted that the manner of applying the scaling formula to raw marks obtained by a candidate can not be covered under the provisions of RTI Act, as it is not covered by the term "information". It is further submitted that as far as the scaling formula applied in the RAS Examination 2007 is concerned, all requisite information is available on the web-site, and the non-petitioner can avail such information from the web-site.

5. It is further submitted that a huge number of candidates wrote the Political Science paper of RAS Examination 2007, and it would be an unwarranted drain on the resources of the RPSC to provide such information relating to the raw marks and corresponding scaled marks of all candidates who wrote the RAS Examination 2007.

6. Counsel for the RPSC has further submitted that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act of 2005, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Counsel would then submits that the non-petitioner could not be supplied as of a right marks of third parties i.e. marks obtained by other candidates in the RAS Examination 2007 in the subject of Political Science or otherwise, as such information has no relationship to any public activity or interest.

7. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner submits that in the event the RPSC were to allow the non-petitioner inspection of her answer sheets of RAS Examination 2007, i.e. General Knowledge, Political Science, and Philosophy, the non-petitioner would be ready and willing to inspect the same on a mutually convenient date and time.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record of writ petition.

9. Counsel for the RPSC has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011, decided on 9.8.2011), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even though the right to information is a cherished right and intended to be a formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens of fight corruption and to bring in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document