Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2010/000143
Dated July 23, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Dr.Jayaprakash
Name of the Public Authority : National Board of Examinations
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.15.5.09 with the PIO, NBE, New Delhi seeking some
information The PIO replied on 1.6.09. The information sought and reply provided thereto are given
below:
S.No. Information Sought Reply provided
1. Details of pediatric theory results conducted by Centre wise theory result of final examinations
National Board in SRMC and RI Centre, Porur, in any subject were not prepared and
Chennai between 2002 Dec. to Dec.2007 maintained in the database.
categorically as below:
2002 Dec.
2003 Jun, Dec. and upto 2007 Jun, Dec.
Total number of candidates during each
aforementioned session separately and number
of candidates passed
Pass results categorized institute wise with
specification of the name of the institute and
percentage of candidates passed in first attempt
2. Name of the examiner who has evaluated The name of the examiners cannot be
theory papers between 2005 June to Dec.2007 disclosed. However, it may be noted that there
is a panel of four examiners who are assigned
the task of assessment of the theory answer
sheets and each examiner evaluates only one
set of answer sheets.
3. List of elected Board members for Pediatric There are no elected Board members for
specialty between 2005 June to Dec.2007 Pediatrics Specialty
4. Answer paper key for theory exam, pediatrics The desired information is not available.
during Dec.2007
5. The reason for not publishing the theory results The result of eligible candidates of theory
as a list of pass candidates as done before examination is published as Pass/Fail. The list
2006. of passed candidates is displayed on the notice
board of NBE office. The result of all the
candidates is also displayed on the NBE
website for electronic dissemination of the
information. Letters are issued to the ‘pass’
candidates to appear for the practical
examination. The ‘fail’ candidates are also
issued ‘fail’ letters.
Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.27.6.09 before CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for July 23,
2010.
3. Capt. K.Paul James, PIO and Dr.Rakesh Gosain, Advocate represented the Public Authority.
4. The Complainant was present along with Dr.Amudini. during the hearing.
Decision
5. During the hearing the Appellant reiterated his contentions as given in an affidavit dated 23.7.10
which he submitted to the Commission during the course of the hearing. The Paras 2 and 3 of the
affidavit which are of relevance to the present case are reproduced below:
2…….. Following this I made a personal representation to the Board seeking remedy but the Board
relied upon their statute and finally with no other remedy I approached the court of law for justice
where I got a favourable judgement to inspect his answer sheets and know my marks, based on
arbitrariness, not allowing the candidate to know his previous performance and if aggrieved can work
up for revaluation. After great efforts to overcome their denial to show my papers, inspection was
allowed with great caution. I was shocked after inspection due to following facts:
• Disparity between expected and scored mark of about 40%
• Presentation of evaluated papers for inspection - masking the vital areas like his
Registration number, signature of examiner
• Peculiar way of markings shaking our faith
• Peculiar behaviour of board faculties
Hereby I conclude and infer that my papers were not evaluated at all. The board has exploited the
power of statute and fiduciary relationship between a candidate and them, while contesting in the
court made some markings on my paper without any basis and produced it in the court describing
that all questions are scored without omission and pleaded for disposal of writ petition.
3. Strongly aggrieved with the evaluation of my answer papers, again I filed a writ to get my
copy of answer sheets so as to work up for the revaluation of the same. For supporting documents I
filed RTI application asking for
• Copy of answer sheet
• Results of candidate who attended the exams in Peadiatrics from Chennai Centre, i.e. result
compilation sheet
• Transcription sheet of my papers
• Name of examiners
• Answer key/best scored paper
6. He requested the Commission to consider review of the answer sheets by a subject expert in the
presence of the Commissioner and pleaded that to be able to argue their case further in the High Court he be
provided with the answer sheets which had been denied by the NBE. He also requested at one stage that the
Commission direct the NBE to reassess the answer sheets as he believes that marks have been tampered
with since while inspecting the answer sheets as ordered by the Court, he had noticed that while marks
transferred to the jacket had been reduced, the marks inside remained higher by 2 marks. The Respondent
from NBE stated that while copies of answer sheets cannot be furnished to the Complainant in view of the Full
Bench decision of CIC, he is willing to facilitate counseling of the Complainant by an expert at Chennai so that
he can do well if he decides to appear again for it.
7. The Commission after hearing both sides noted that the Complainant had already approached the
Madras High Court with a Writ Petition in October 2009 requesting for reevaluation of his answer sheet and for
the Court’s directions to the Respondents to provide copies of answer sheets of papers 1 to 4 in DNB and
holds that the law should be allowed to take its course and that any interference by the Commission at this
stage is not justified since the information being sought by the Complainant is the very same information on
which the court is relying upon to give its judgment with respect to its disclosure.
8. The Commission based on the discussions held directs the PIO, NBE to provide a copy of the
theory results of final examinations in whatever form they are available after severing information
that is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. As agreed to the Respondent may also provide the
details of counseling that can be offered to the Complainant at Chennai. Information to be provided
by 25 August, 2010. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Dr.Jayaprakash P.
House No.1/663
17th Street
Balaganesh Nagar
Redhills
Chennai
2. The PIO
National Board of Examinations
PSP Area
Sector9, Dwarka
New Delhi
3. Officer incharge, NIC
4. Press E Group, CIC