A case cannot be heard again or decided afresh if it has already been heard and decided by the Commission.

1.

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.08.2021 seeking information on

the following points:

(i)

“In class 12, marks obtained in Unit Test only/ or, Marks obtained in Mid-

Term exam only/ or, Marks obtained in Pre-Board Exam only.

(ii)

In class 12, the average of marks obtained in all the three exams.

(iii) Best marks obtained in Class 12 out of all these three exams conducted.

(iv)

Or, any other mode of marking is done”

2.

The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.09.2021 and the same is reproduced as

under:-

Page 2 of 3

“(i)- The application of the candidate is being forwarded to concerned school to

immediately provide complete details of marks and calculation thereof in respect

of candidate.

(ii) & (iii) - Refer point no. 01.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First

Appeal dated 14-19.10.2021. The FAA order, if any, is not available on record.

4.

Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with

the instant Second Appeal dated 04.02.2022.

5.

The Appellant was present through video conference and on behalf of the

Respondent, M K Pathak, US attended the hearing in person.

6.

The Appellant was heard at length whereby he harped on his angst against the

concerned school Principal and CBSE for not hearing him out on the issues being raised

by him against the marking pattern followed in his son’s case.

7.

The Respondent submitted that the Appellant has been duly informed about the

extant rules and policy that governed the marking scheme and also the option for

appearing in Improvement Exam in the case of those wards who were dissatisfied with

the marks awarded to them. Upon a continued discussion on the subject grievance, it

transpired that the same Appeal of the Appellant has been previously heard and decided

by the Commission vide File No. CIC/CBSED/A/2022/118518 on 23.08.2022. At this

instance, the Appellant shifted his arguments to an altogether fresh grievance that the

Respondent office has not complied with the direction contained in the earlier order,

wherein the CPIO was asked to act on his grievance. The Commission opined that the

same case cannot be heard again or decided afresh, and the hearing was closed with an

advice to the Appellant to pursue his grievance against CBSE’s marking in his son’s case

before the appropriate forum.

8.

The Commission in pursuance of the hearing proceedings, treats the instant

appeal as infructuous.

Page 3 of 3

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम)

Information Commissioner (सूचना

सूचना

सूचना

सूचना आयु

आयु

आयु

आयु)

दनांक/Date: 29.12.2023

Authenticated true copy

Suman Bala

Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)

011-26180514

Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO

Central Board of Secondary Education,

Nodal CPIO (Coordination Unit), RTI Branch,

Headquarter, 2, Community Centre Preet Vihar,

Delhi – 110092.

2. Prabhat Charan