ORDER

FACTS

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Account Officer, certified copy / copies of answer sheet / sheets of paper / papers in which the Appellant not qualified etc.

The CPIO vide letter dated 12.11.2018 informed the Appellant that on points No. 01 to 06, arrangements are under process for communicating the marks and on point No. 7, answer sheets cannot be revealed as per Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment pronounced in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 15.01.2019, informed the Appellant that on points No. 01 to 06, the information was provided to him through SMS and on point No. 7, information already supplied by the CPIO is upheld. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide information.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Shree Ram, Director (PA- Admn)/ CPIO, present in person.

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent submitted that they had furnished a reply to the Appellant vide letters dated 12.11.2018 and 15.01.2019. On being queried by the Commission regarding reasons for denial of Appellant’s own answer sheet to him, no cogent response was offered by the Respondent and he again reiterated the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar in Civil Appeal No. (s) 6159-6162 of 2013.

The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.

The Commission at the outset observed that the Respondent has been citing a decision of the Apex Court, which is neither applicable nor relevant to the examination held by them. Perusal of the decision reveals that the scope of the Apex Court decision in Angesh Kumar’s case specifically deals with the Competitive exams. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors in Civil Appeal No. (s) 6159-6162 of 2013 decided on 20.02.2018 had observed that as following:

“........we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced.”

The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is thus limited to the Competitive Exams which do not cover the Departmental Exams per-se held by the Public Authorities nor is applicable to situations where it is prima-facie made out that larger public interest is involved. Moreover, the Commission sees this as a serious case wherein multiple Second Appeals related to the said exam are being heard by the Commission on regular basis.

The Commission further observes that the issue to access his/ her own answer sheet by a candidate had been long settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. SLP (C) No. 7526/2009 decision dated 9thAugust, 2011, wherein it was observed that every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or taking certified copies thereof unless the same was exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. The relevant observations made in the judgment are as under:

“11. The definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the RTI Act refers to any material in any form which includes records, documents, opinions, papers among several other enumerated item