O R D E R

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Limited, Kerala. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

“I was a candidate for the written test conducted by FACT Ltd. on 06- O7.2019 for the post of Management Trainee (Civil). My Reg. No. was 29003100. I may be provided with the following information as expeditiously as possible.

a) Score sheet showing number of questions attended, number of wrong answers and marks obtained by me in the above mentioned written test.

b) Document showing the highest mark and lowest mark obtained by short listed candidates”.

2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 16.09.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The order of the first appellate authority, if any is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. Mr. Sadiq, father of the appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Mr. R. Krishnan, General Manager (Training & Development)/

CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The appellant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 17.08.2019. He further submitted that the CPIO without application of his mind has wrongly rejected his application under Sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 09.09.2019, they have denied the information to the appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the score sheet contains other information also which cannot be disclosed. Upon being queried by the Commission about the information which attracts Sec. 8(1)(j) for disclosure of the candidates own score sheet. The respondent could not give any plausible explanation for the same.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding his score sheet along with highest and lowest marks scored by the shortlisted candidates. The respondent has wrongly denied the information under Sec. 8(1)(j) of the Act. 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 items. The term ‘record’ is defined in section 2(i) of the said Act as including any document, manuscript or file among others. When a candidate participates in an examination and writes his answers in an answer- book and submits it to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer-book is a document or record.

When the answer-book is evaluated by an examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer-book becomes a record containing the ‘opinion’ of the examiner. Therefore the evaluated answer-book is also an ‘information’ under the RTI Act.”

It was furthermore stated in Para 14 of the above-mentioned judgment “The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer-books are exempted from dis