ORDER

02.01.2012 - Heard Mr. Bijaya Kumar Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner-OPSC and Mr. B. Rath, learned counsel on behalf of O.P. No.1 and Mr. Bhuyan learned counsel on behalf O.P. No.2.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Orissa Public Service Commission (OPSC), Cuttack questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 08.04.2008 passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner, Orissa Information Commission (hereinafter called the 'SCIC') in Second Appeal No.349 of 2007 under Annexure-6 wherein the SCIC while allowing the Second Appeal filed by the present O.P. No.2, directed the petitioner to provide the information as sought for under the RTI Act, 2005 by the O.P. No.2 within 30 days by speed post after blanking out relevant portions indicated in paragraph-5 of the said order and report compliance thereof.

3. The fact situation giving rise to this writ petition in nutshell is that O.P. No.2 had made an application in prescribed format under Section 6(1) of the R.T.I. Act, 2005 read with Rule 4(1) of the R.T.I. Rules 2005 for supply of photocopies of his Answer Sheets of English Paper-I & II, Arithmetic, General Knowledge, Intelligence test of Junior Assistant Examination conducted by the OPSC. The Public Information Officer-cum-Secretary (PIO) OPSC did not agree to furnish the photo copies of the answer scripts and rejected the application of the O.P. No.2 on the ground that it comes under the exempted category covered under Sections 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of the R.T.I. Act. Against the said rejection order, O.P. No.2 preferred First Appeal before the Special Secretary of OPSC-First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority rejected the said appeal with a finding that the authority conducting the examination and the examiners evaluating the answer papers stand in a fiduciary relationship between each other and such matter warrants maintenance of confidentiality by both the manners and method of evaluation. Being aggrieved O.P. No.2 filed Second Appeal No.349/2007 before the SCIC. The SCIC after hearing the parties, allowed the Second Appeal and directed the PIO to provide information sought for by the O.P. No.2 within 30 days by speed post. The relevant portion of the findings of the SCIC reads thus:

"...The State Commission in many cases have held, by giving consistent and reasoned decisions, that photocopies of evaluated answer sheets are to be supplied, on request to the examinee(s) by blanking out the name of the examiner(s), Chief Examiner etc, their initials and code number etc. The PIO, perhaps has lost sight of the overriding provisions contained in Section 22 of the RTI Act, which supersedes the extant instructions/orders/decision's etc in this regard."

4. Learned counsel for the OPSC in support of the rejection of application of O.P. No.2 by the PIO as well as First Appellate Authority submits that the O.P. No.2 is not entitled to get the information sought for as per the statutory provisions under Sections 8(1 )(e) & 8(1)(j) of the R.T.1. Act, 2005 for the reason that it will affect the fiduciary relationship of the examiners and the OPSC, which is conducting the examination and if it will be disclosed there will be no confidentiality in the manners and method of evaluation and it may have a serious effect if the same will be disclosed and therefore the PIO as well as First Appellate Authority have rightly rejected the prayer of the O.P. No.2 seeking the information. Hence, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-OPSC to set aside the impugned order passed the SCIC.

5. an the other hand Mr. B.N. Rath, learned counsel on behalf of the State Information Commission-O.P. No.1, placing reliance upon the counter filed by the O.P. No.1, and recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others*, (2011) 8 SCC 497; and Institute of Chartered Accounts of India v. Shaunak H. Satya and