CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/901515/SG/15798
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/901515/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. G.V.S.S.N.R Prasad,
Flat no.207, Sal Deepthi Apartment
Kamalanagar(South),
Post, ECIL Post
HYDERABAD–500062
Respondent : Mr. V. Dayanan
Public Information Officer & Director (Admin.)
Department of Atomic Energy
3rd floor, Anushakti Bhavan,
C.S.M. Marg, Mumbal 400 001.
RTI application filed on : 13/12/2010 PIO replied : 24/01/2011 First appeal filed on : 31/01/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 07/04/2011 Second Appeal received on : 30/05/2011 Information Sought:
Applicant requested for the photocopies of the evaluated answer sheets in the given in the particular
format of the exams for the post of the Assistant- I.II, III, IV (paper appeared) held from 12.12.2009 to
15/l2/2010 :
Roll no- 378
APO/AO- I.II.IIII.IV (paper appeared) held from 25/09/2010 to 28/09/2010
Roll no- 349
1. The list of employees who qualified on adding of grace marks from 1994 to till date in the examinations
for the posts of Assistant Accountant, Assistant, Asstt. Personnel Officer, Assistant Accounts Officer and
how many marks added as grace to qualify in the said examinations.
2. In case an employee who appeared for the above said examination(s), if attempted a question and
completed it partially (left unfinished due to lack of time, could not get it proper,.. etc,.) whether pro-rata
or proportionate marks were awarded.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
0.1 Ans: Photocopies of the evaluated answer of APO/AAO Examination held from 25.09.20 10 to
29.09.20 10 can be made available on payment of Rs.140/-(Rs.One hundred forty only) i.e. 2/- per page,
by Cash/IPO/Demand draft drawn in favor of Pay & Accounts Officer, DAE, Mumbai.
0.2(1) The list of employees who qualified on adding of grace marks from 1994 to till date in the
examinations for the post of Asst. Accountant, Assistant, Assistant Personnel Officer, Assistant Accounts
Officer and how many grace marks added as grace to qualify the said examinations:
Ans: The information is exempt under 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Q.2(2) In case an employee who appeared for the above said examination(s), if attempted a question and
completed it partially (left unfinished due to lack of time, could not get it proper, etc.) whether pro-rata or
proportionate marks were added.
Ans: The question does not come under the purview of Right: to information Act, 2005.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided by the PIO is unsatisfactory.
Order of the FAA:
It is informed that since 1994, no general candidates have been declared successful in the Centralised
Departmental Written Examinations held for the posts of Assistant Accountant, Asst. Personnel Officer
and Asstt. Accounts Officer with grace marks. However, 9 ST candidates and 4 SC candidates have been
declared pass with grace marks — last one being in 2002.
The Appellant’s has also sought information about how marks are awarded in respect of questions
attempted partially. In this regard, it is informed that in such cases the evaluator is expected to go through
the answers, consider its content and relevance and award marks as he deems fit No written standing
instructions are there on this matter.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The information provided is unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. G.V.S.S.N.R Prasad on video conference from NIC-Hyderabad Studio;
Respondent : Mr. V. Dayanan, Public Information Officer & Director (Admin.) on video conference
from NIC-Mumbai Studio;
The Appellant has sought information about the list of employees in whose case grace marks were
added to qualify for the examination and how many grace marks were given. The PIO has refused to give
this information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. As far as the act of giving
marks for any examination is concerned the marks are not provided by any candidate but are given by the
examining body. Thus this cannot be claimed to be information provided by a candidate in a fiduciary
capacity. The exemption had been wrongly applied by the PIO. The respondent states that there are 13
such candidates. The Commission directs the PIO to provide the details of the names and grace marks
given to each candidate.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 10 December 2011.
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 of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
21 November 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (pr)
