O R D E R

FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points:-

1. Provide photo copies of answer sheets of all papers i.e. (Paper 1 to 6) and obtained marks in each paper.

2. Provide photocopies of the answer sheets of all paper i.e. (Paper 1 to 6) of merit list serial

3. In the merit list serial No. 604 Aradhana Kumari, Father Name Ashok Kumar Suman DOB

15.08.1992 has been declared successful. In this regard please inform her date of entry in the service with initial cadre.

4. In serial 879 Shri Randhir Kumar father name Shri Bijendra Choudahary DOB 05.08.1991 in this regard inform the date entry in the service with initial cadre.

The CPIO, vide letter dated 02.11.2018, denied the Answer sheet by referring the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar. Further, on points 03 and 04 stated that no such information is available with them.Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide order dated 03.01.2019, upheld the reply of the CPIO. 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: Shree Ram, CPIO through Audio Conferencing;

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that an updated response was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 23.04.2021. The Respondent further relied on its written submission which is taken on record.

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 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