In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/WB/A/2010/000605AD
Date of Hearing : January 15, 2011
Date of Decision : January 15, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Ankur Mutreja
Unit I
Ground Floor
156, Gagan Vihar Extension
Delhi 110 051
The Applicant was present during the hearing.
Respondents
University of Delhi
O/o the Asst. Registrar (Info)
Main Campus
Delhi 110 007
Represented by : Shri Jay Chanda, CPIO & Deputy Registrar, and Shri Shankar Kumar Paul, PA to
CPIO.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/WB/A/2010/000605AD
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.3.3.10 with the PIO, University of Delhi seeking the following
information:
i) Date on which examined and evaluated answer scripts of Advanced Diploma French –
Paper II (literature) Serial No.7467 for Roll No.33003, Advanced Diploma in French
Examination 2009 were destroyed.
ii) Inspection of the file and certified copies of the file notings in which order for destruction of
and execution of destruction of examined and evaluated answer scripts of Advanced
Diploma French – Paper II (literature) Serial No.7467 for Roll No.33003, Advanced Diploma
in French Examination 2009.
2. Shri Jay Chanda, CPIO replied on 31.3.10 enclosing the noting furnished by Section Officer
(Marksheet) who in his note dt.29.3.10 stated that since the answer scripts have already been
destroyed, the date on which they had been examined cannot be provided. With regard to point (ii),
he added that there is no separate file maintained for this purpose. Since there is an EC resolution
as mentioned above, there is no need to obtain periodical approval on this matter. The Applicant filed
an appeal dt.26.4.10 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information against
point (i). The Appellate Authority vide his order dt.26.5.10 upheld the decision of the PIO. Being
aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant preferred his second appeal dt.29.5.10 before CIC.
Decision
3. The Commission received an addendum from the Appellant dt.15.1.11 stating the following:
i) The original RTI request dated 3.3.10 with respect to which the above appeal has been filed
was motivated by the letter dt.25.2.10 of the CPIO, Delhi University (DU) addressed to him in
compliance with an earlier decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/003206/6807 of CIC with respect to another
second appeal in another matter against Delhi University.
ii) That CPIO DU through Section Officer (marksheet) deliberately misread and misconstrued
the RTI request made in Para 1 and did not provide the information requested and did not provide the
relevant information with respect to the information requested in Para 2 which prompted him to file
the first appeal.
iii) That the First Appellate Authority DU holding that the information has already been provided
disposed of his first appeal without granting any relief.
iv) That he had sent a contempt notice dt.4.8.10 to the PIO DU with reference to the said CIC
decision in response to which the Dean (Examinations) DU vide letter dt.28.8.10 informed him that
his answer scripts, inspection of which was subject matter of the RTI request with respect to the said
CIC decision, have not been destroyed and were being kept in the revaluation section of the
Examination office DU.
v) That the date and file notings of destruction of the same answer scripts are the subject
matter of the present appeal and the present RTI request, and the information provided in the letter
dt.28.8.10 by the Dean (Examinations) DU needs to be confirmed by the CPIO DU in the present
proceedings which would satisfy his original RTI request in the present proceedings.
4. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that the answer scripts of those candidates who do not
apply for revaluation within 15 days of declaration of result are destroyed. He added that
Examination section and Revaluation section are different and as far as the examination section is
concerned their involvement in any further activity subsequent to the declaration of results is
minimal. He further added that there is no mechanism to check whether a particular answer sheet
has been destroyed or has been sent for evaluation until the candidate himself requests for the same.
The Appellant, not satisfied with the explanation provided by the Respondent contended that
contradictory information had been provided to him about the availability of the his answersheet with
malafide intention while referring to the information provided by the Section Officer (Marksheet) and
Dean (Examinations).
5. The Commission after hearing the submissions made directs the Dean (Examinations)/concerned
PIO to explain the process of conducting the examination including the evaluation of answer sheets
and also to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for providing false
information the second time with ostensibly malafide intention . He is directed to submit his written
response to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant by 25.2.11. The PIO is directed to forward
a copy of the order to Dean (Examinations) and Section Officer (Marksheet).
6. Now that is it is evident that the answer sheets are available, the required information to be provided
to the Appellant by 25 February, 2011 by the concerned PIO.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Ankur Mutreja
Unit I
Ground Floor
156, Gagan Vihar Extension
Delhi 110 051
2. The Public Information Officer
University of Delhi
O/o the Asst. Registrar (Info)
Main Campus
Delhi 110 007
3. The Appellate Authority
University of Delhi
O/o the Registrar
Main Campus
Delhi 110 007
4. Officer Incharge, NIC
