ORDER

FACTS

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points, as under:-

Point 1:- Provide the photocopies of each page of my answer sheets of paper I to Paper VI in LDCE AAO 2018.

Point 2: Provide the marks obtained by me in each paper in LDCE AAO 2018 result Point 3: Provide the photocopies of answer sheets of each paper of last 05 merit holders in UR category in LDCE AAO 2018 result.

The CPIO vide letter dated 02.11.2018, informed the Appellant that on points No. 01 and 03 information cannot be revealed as per Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment pronounced in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar and on point No. 02 arrangements are under process for communicating the marks. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide information on points No. 01 to 03.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Arvind Kumar, through AC;

Respondent: Mr. Shree Ram, Director (PA-Admn) & CPIO, through AC.

The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI showed his dissatisfaction and stated that complete and clear information be provided to him specifically on query No. 1 & 3 of his RTI Application. He further submitted that information on query No. 2 was provided by the Respondent only after the receipt of the Notice given by the Commission. The Respondent present during the hearing gave no cogent response and reiterated the contents of the written submission.

The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 12.03.2021, wherein it is submitted that as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar in Civil Appeal No. (s) 6159-6162 of 2013, answer sheet cannot be revealed. The marks of the candidate were furnished therein and for query No. 3 information had been denied being the Third Party information.

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 t