CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /OK/A/2008/01279//SG/0831
Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/01279/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar,
B/26, IIT Campus,
Kharagpur,
Oirssa – 721302.
Respondent 1 : PIO,
Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur - 721302.
RTI application filed on : 26/06/2008
PIO replied : 16/07/2008
First appeal filed on : 20/07/2008
First Appellate Authority order : not replied.
Second Appeal filed on : 04/09/2008
The appellant had asked in their RTI application related to the Chemistry
answer papers (OMR sheet) (Reg. No. 4072099), marks obtained, list of all the
persons who were deployed from each of the seven IITs, during the period from,
after the examination (on 09/04/2006) to before, the declaration of result (on
31/05/2006) & statement of accounts.
Detail of required information:-
1. The Chemistry answer paper (OMR Sheet), in original, of my son, Sanchit
Bansal (Reg. No. 4072099).
2. The Chemistry answer papers (OMR Sheet), in originals, of all the wards of
the IITs faculty/Staff-members (from all the seven IIT’s) who appeared in JEE
2006 and received AIRs (All India Ranks) in General category.
3. Marks obtained in Maths, Physics and Chemistry along with their AIRs of all
those candidates who are listed in Item 2 above.
4. A list of all the person who were deployed from each of the seven IITs, during
the period from, after the examination (on 09/04/2006), to before the
declaration of result (on 31/05/2006), along with the details of the nature of
JEE work, their designation and name of the Dept./Centre/Unite in which they
were posted.
5. Statement of Accounts from each of the seven IITs regarding the
honorarium/remuneration paid to the persons employed for JEE work during
the period as listed in Item 4 above.
The PIO replied.
“Your letters dated 26/06/2008 and 30/06/2008 on the above subject.
The note dated 30/06/2008 of the Organizing Chairman, JEE 2006 is
forwarded herewith, which is the self-explanatory and containing the information as
available.”
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not replied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Kumar
Respondent: Mr D.Gunasekaran PIO
Prof. V.K.Tiwari deemed PIO
There have been differing views on what information can be given and what has been
given between the respondent and the appellant. On points 1 and 2 the respondent
states that the answer sheets have been destroyed as per their procedure and hence
cannot be given. The Commission agrees with this.
On point 3 the respondent states that they do not have data in which the wards of
faculty members are identified. The appellant believes it is possible to get this
information by certain indirect queries. The respondent is agreeable to give the entire
database giving al the fields to the appellant, who can then extract the data he desires.
On points 4 and 5 the respondent claimed that they do not have all the data from the
different IITs. They will obtain this data and give it to the appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information on point 3 to the appellant before
12 Janaury 2009.
The information on points 4 and 5 will be provided to the appellant before
30 January 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
2 January 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)