Central Information Commission
Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama
Place, New Delhi110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Appeal : No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001713
Appellant /Complainant : Sh. Kailash Chand
Gupta, Jaipur
Public Authority : Central Board of
Secondary Education,
Delhi ( Sh. G.L. Mittal,
Dy.Secy.,CPIO)
Date of Hearing : 05 April 2011
Date of Decision : 05 April 2011
Facts
:
1. Shri Kailash Chand submitted RTI application
dated 31 May 2010 before the CPIO, CBSC, Delhi
requesting for information pertaining to OMR sheet
and model answer sheet for AIEEE exam 2010 in respect
of his son Geet Gupta. The CPIO denied disclosure of
information in his order dated 2 July 2010 on the
grounds that disclosure did not serve a larger public
interest and also informed that AIEEE answer sheets
are machine treated with extreme care and repeatedly
scrutinised and that there is no provision for
rechecking/reevaluation of the answer sheets and
relied on Commission’s judgment dated 23 April 2007.
2. Applicant preferred appeal dated to July 2010
before the first appellate authority in which he
stated that his son had expected 263 marks but that
the board had awarded him only 208 marks because of
which his son has suffered shock and is in depression
since the declaration of the results.
3. Vide order dated 16 July 2010, FAA upheld the
order of the CPIO but informed the appellant that
even though there was no provision for rechecking,
after taking approval of the Competent Authority of
the Board the answer sheet in respect of roll number
2620 4874 has been rechecked and the marks obtained
by the candidate are found to be correct.
4. Not being satisfied by the above orders the
appellant preferred second appeal before the
Commission. The matter was heard today. Appellant was
present at Jaipur and heard through
videoconferencing. Respondent was present in person
as above. Appellant repeated that as per their own
calculation in consultation with experts, his son
should have been awarded higher marks. Respondent
submitted copy of reevaluation sheet before the
Commission as proof of the fact that as a special
case the answer sheet of the appellant’s son had been
rechecked. He however reiterated that as per the
existing rules and on the basis of earlier decisions
of the Commission, there was no provision for
providing copy of OMR answer sheet of the model
answer sheet to the appellant.
Decision notice
5. After hearing both parties, Commission notes
that respondent has confirmed that evaluation of the
0MR answer sheets is carried out through computerized
process and not manually. It is also established as
per the decision of the CIC in Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs
Harish Chander that where OMR sheets are used, as in
the present case, the disclosure of evaluated answer
sheet was “unlikely to render the system unworkable
and as such the evaluated answer sheets in such cases
will be disclosed and made available under the Right
to Information Act unless providing such answer
sheets would involve an infringement of copyright as
provided for under section 9 of the RTI Act”.
6. To press his point, appellant has relied on the
judgement of S. Muralidhar, J in W.P (C) 751 of 2011
and CM Appl 1598/2011 filed in Delhi High Court which
upheld the order of the Central information
Commission dated 23 December 2010 in which
Commission directed CPIO of the Indian Institute of
Technology, Delhi to provide the mark sheet to the
appellant. Through its order the Court has ruled that
“the evaluation of the ORS is carried out through
computerized process and not manually, the question
of there being a fiduciary relationship between the
IIT and the evaluators does not arise….. and no
prejudice can be caused to the IIT by providing a
candidate a photocopy of the concerned 0RS. This is
not information being sought by a third party but by
the candidate himself or herself. The disclosure of
such photocopy of the 0RS will not compromise the
identity of the evaluator, since the evaluation is
done through a computerized process.”
7. The Court also dismissed the argument that if
the impugned orders of the CIC are sustained it would
open a “floodgate” of such applications by other
candidates as a result of which the entire JEE and
GATE would “collapse” on the grounds that the
apprehension is exaggerated.
8. In keeping with the spirit and tone of the
aforementioned judgment, Commission directs the CPIO
to provide a copy of the OMR answer sheet and model
answer key as sought by the appellant within one week
of receipt of the order.
9. Commission invites attention of the Chairman,
CBSE to the fact that in the new milieu which favours
transparency in actions of public authorities, the
board should revisit this issue in the light of the
fact that the IIT’s and two universities – Rajasthan
and Himachal Pradesh – have taken decision to place
on their websites the OMR answer sheets of the
candidates along with the model answer sheet in the
interest of fairness and transparency in the
examination system.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Tel No. 01126105027
Copy to:
1. Shri Kailash Chand Gupta
S172, Shopping Centre
Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur302015
2. The CPIO
The Central Board of Secondary Education
PS12, Institutional Area,
I.P. Extension, Patparganj,
Delhi110092
3. The Appellate Authority
The Central Board of Secondary Education
PS12, Institutional Area,
I.P. Extension, Patparganj,
Delhi110092
4. The Chairman
The Central Board of Secondary Education
PS12, Institutional Area,
I.P. Extension, Patparganj,
Delhi110092
