CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
D- Wing, 2nd Floor,
August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066
Appeal No.CIC/SS/A/2011/000379
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
Complainant : Shri Ashok Kumar Choudhary (present in person)
Respondents : Agriculture Scientists Recruitment Board, Krishi
Anusandhan Bhawan-I, Pusa, New Delhi
(Represented by Shri N.S. Randhawa,
Secretary ASRB & Shri Vinod Kumar, CPIO)
Date of Hearing : 22/06/2011
BACKGROUND
OF THE CASE:
1. The Appellant through an RTI Application dated 27/10/2010 had sought the
following information:
“”1. Copy of question booklet of ICR NET 2010 Main Stream Agricultural
Science (Krishi Nigam Samhu) – group crop protection
2. OMR Answer sheet – ICR NET 2010 Main Stream Agricultural Science
(Krishi Nigam Samhu) – group crop protection.
3. Model Answer Sheet – ICR NET 2010 Main Stream Agricultural Science
(Krishi Nigam Samhu) – group crop protection.”
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 24/11/2010 denied the information sought under
Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved by the CPIO’s Order, the
Appellant preferred first appeal before the FAA of the Respondent. The
FAA vide its Order dated 05/01/2011 upheld the reply of the CPIO. The
Appellant, aggrieved with the reply of the FAA, has preferred second appeal
under the RTI Act before this Commission.
3. The Appellant had submitted during the hearing that the information sought
by him was wrongfully denied to him by the CPIO and the FAA of the
Respondent. The Respondent however submitted that they are a professional
body whose function is only to conduct examination. They conduct
examination on a very large scale and more than 30 thousand aspiring
candidates appear every year for the examination.
DECISION NOTICE:
4. The Commission has carefully perused through the written submissions
placed before us by both the parties and have duly considered the arguments
advanced by the Respondent during the course of hearing.
5. The Commission is reminded of its Full Bench decision in ‘Shri Rakesh
Kumar Singh and Ors vs. Shri Harish Chander, Assistant Director and
Ors’ dated 23/04/2007 where it was held as follows:
“38. There are various types of examinations conducted by public
authorities which could be either public or limited examinations.
Examinations are conducted for various purposes viz. (i) for admission to
educational institutions, (ii) for selection and appointment to a public
office, (iii) for promotion to higher classes in educational institutions or in
employment etc. There are institutions like UPSC, Staff Selection
Commission, CBSE etc, the main function of which is only to conduct
examinations. Many public authorities, as those in the present appeals like
Jal Board, Railways, Lok Saba Secretariat, DDA, whose main function is
not of conducting examinations, do so either to recruit fresh candidates for
jobs or for promotion of existing staff. Thus these public authorities
conduct both public as well as departmental examinations.
39. In regard to public examinations conducted by institutions established
by the Constitution like UPSC or institutions established by any enactment
by the Parliament or Rules made thereunder like CBSE, Staff Selection
Commission, Universities., etc, the function of which is mainly to conduct
examinations and which have an established system as fool-proof as that
can be, and which, by their own rules or regulations prohibit disclosure of
evaluated answer sheets or where the disclosure of evaluated answer
sheets would result in rendering the system unworkable in practice and on
the basis of the rationale followed by the Supreme Court in the above two
cases, we would like to put at rest the matter of disclosure of answer
sheets. We therefore decide that in such cases, a citizen cannot seek
disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act, 2005.
40. Insofar as examinations conducted by other public authorities, the
main function of which is not of conducting examinations, but only for
filling up of posts either by promotion or by recruitment, be it limited or
public, the rationale of the judgments of the Supreme Court may not be
applicable in their totality, as in arriving at their conclusions, the above
judgments took into consideration various facts like the large number of
candidates, the method and criteria of selection of examiners, existence of
a fool-proof system with proper checks and balances etc. Therefore, in
respect of these examinations, the disclosure of the answer sheets shall be
the general rule but each case may have to be examined individually to see
as to whether disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would render the
system unworkable in practice. If that be so, the disclosure of the
evaluated answer sheets could be denied but not otherwise. However,
while doing so the concerned authority should ensure that the name and
identity of the examiner, supervisor or any other person associated with
the process of examination is in no way disclosed so as to endanger the
life or physical safety of such person. If it is not possible to do so in such
cases, the authority concerned may decline the disclosure of the evaluated
answer sheets Under Section 8 (1) (g).”
6. The Commission is of the view that the present appeal before us squarely
attracts the ratio of the above cited Full Bench decision (supra). Thus, so far
as Point Nos.2 and 3 of the RTI Application are concerned, the Order of the
CPIO of the Respondent is upheld. However, the Commission is of the view
that the information on Point No.1 of the RTI Application is not exempted
under the RTI Act.
7. The Commission therefore directs the CPIO of the Respondent to furnish the
complete information on Point No.1 of the RTI Application to the Appellant
within 10 days of receiving this Order. The Appeal is accordingly disposed
of.
Sushma Singh
Information Commissioner
15.07.2011
Authenticated True Copies
K.K. Sharma
OSD & Deputy Registrar
Address of the Parties:-
Sh. Ashok Kumar Choudhary,
H-2, Krishi Nagar, Bhandariya Road,
Khandwa, (M.P.), PIN – 450 001
Sh. Vinod Kumar,
PIO & Technical Officer,
Agriculture Scientists Recruitment Board,
Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan – 1, Pusa,
New Delhi – 110 012
Sh. N.S. Randhawa
Secretary & Appellate Authority,
Agriculture Scientists Recruitment Board,
Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan – 1, Pusa,
New Delhi – 110 012