CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001623/4544
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001623
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Deepak Agnihotri
S/o Late Om Prakash Sharma,
22, Prem Nagar Market, Tyag Raj Nagar,
New Delhi-110003.
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda,
Asst. Registrar & PIO
University of Delhi,
Main Campus, Delhi-110007.
RTI application filed on : 16/04/2009
PIO replied : 09/05/2009
First appeal filed on : 14/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 16/06/2009
Second Appeal received on : 06/07/2009
Information sought:
The Appellant had asked the following information about LL.M. Entrance Test paper
2009 conducted by the University as the Appellant had appeared in the entrance test. As he saw
the result of roll no. 20212 (Deepti Singh), he found that she got 159 marks and her ranking was
displaced twice i.e. 664 & 12. How is this possible?
Now Appellant’s further query in the same situation, while filling up the answer sheet, all
the particular of the candidate are filled duly ball pen with marking oval space but in answer
column, we are given instruction to mark the oval shape by HB pencil. What is the logic behind
to do so? Does it not have negative effect on the evaluation/checking process of answer sheet?
When the questions paper have 175 questions and the given time is 120 minute so the Appellant
thought that no candidate had so much time to change the answer by rubbing the pencil.
Reply of PIO
“It may be stated that Ms. Deepti Singh has obtained 159 marks in LL.M. Entrance Test, 2009
and she has secured 664th rank in General Category and 12th rank in CW (Wards/ widows of
Armed Forces Personnel) category. It may further be stated that her Common Rank is 879.
On the second part of the query, it may be stated that candidates were given instructions for
filling up of Answer-sheets and evaluation takes place accordingly. Candidates were already
given detailed instructions alongwith the Bulletin of Information.
Appellant may be informed of accordingly at the earliest.”
Grounds for First Appeal:
Impugned reply received from the PIO is unsatisfactory.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
“After considering the appeal, it appears that the information has been provided to the Appellant.
The issues brought out by the Appellant in the appeal are a matter of interpretation. Therefore,
there is no actionable point in the appeal.”
Grounds for Second Appeal
The Appellant is not satisfied with the PIO’s reply and FAA’s decision.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Deepak Agnihotri
Respondent: Mr. Jay Chanda, PIO
The Appellant states that he has got satisfactory answer to query 1. His second query is a demand
for explaining why the University accepts OMR sheet by Pencils and not by Pen. There is
apparently no information on record for this and therefore this does not constitute information as
defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
Information has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free cost as per Section 7(6) of
RTI Ac.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
24 August 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(AK)