Central Information Commission Judgements

Sh. Amitava Choudhary, Howrah vs Central Board Of Secondary … on 19 August, 2010

Central Information Commission
Sh. Amitava Choudhary, Howrah vs Central Board Of Secondary … on 19 August, 2010
                      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/Complaint: No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000669­DS


Appellant /Complainant                    :     Shri  Amitava 
Choudhary, Howrah 
Public Authority                           :     Central Board of 
Secondary Education,
                                          New Delhi ( Sh. M.L. 
Chauhan, Asstt.
                                          Secy., CPIO & Sh. 
M.K.Arora, Dy.Secy.
                                          ­through video 
conferencing)

Date of Hearing                            :    19 /08/2010

Date of Decision                     :    19 /08/2010

Facts

:­ 

1.   Shri Amitava  Choudhary vide his RTI application sought 
information   from   the   CPIO,   Central   Board   of   Secondary 
Education,   Allahabad   pertaining   to   answer   script   of   Soumik 
Mitra   Roll   No.   5670335   from  School   No.   08495   and   Centre  No. 
5429,  RTI   application   dated   7.10.2009     enclosed   herewith   as 
Annexure­A. 

 2. The   CPIO   vide   his   order   dated   31.10.2009   provided 
information to the appellant on Points 2 to 5.  In respect of 
point­1, he stated that the Coordination Unit of the Board is 
being requested to provide appropriate reply. 

3. Not   being   satisfied,   the   appellant   preferred     appeal 
before the FAA dated 17.11.2009
  which was disposed of   vide FAA order dated 25.11.2009 vide 
which he upheld  the order of the CPIO. FAA in his order also 
referred   to   Central   Information     Commission’s     decision   No. 
CIC/OK/A/2008/00832/SG/0677   adjunct   dated   04.11.2009   (copy 
enclosed)   passed   in   Appeal   No.CIC/OK/A/2008/00832   wherein   it 
is   stated   that   “As   per   the   Full   Bench   decision   of   the  
Commission   in   Rakesh   Kumar   Singh   &   ors.   V.   PIO,   Lok   Sabha  
Secretariat & Ors. CIC/WB/C/2006/00223 copies of answer sheet  
need not be provided by certain public authorities including  
CBSE.   The   basis   for   this   decision   is   that   huge   numbers   of  
students take examinations conducted by the CBSE and therefore  
disclosure   of   answer   sheets   would   be   practically   very  
difficult.”

4. Being   aggrieved   and   not   being   satisfied   the   appellant 
preferred appeal before the Commission. 

5. The matter  was heard today. Appellant  was heard through 
video conferencing. Respondents were present as above. 

6. With   reference   to   point­1   of   the   RTI   application, 
respondent clarified that the CPIO, Allahabad had referred the 
question to the Coordination Unit of the Board on 3.11.2009. 
The  appellant     pointed   out   that  they   had   received   vague  and 
sketchy   information   from   the   Board   vide   their   letter   dated 
18.11.2009/9.12.2009, clearly showing inordinate delay by the 
CPIO, Allahabad in forwarding the question to the Board under 
section 6(3) of the Act and also by the CPIO of the Board in 
providing the information.

7. Respondents gave a detailed clarification on the Marking 
Scheme   prepared  by   subject   experts,  the  Observation  Schedule 
which was prepared after taking into account in puts of stake 
holders   and   the   final   Marking   Scheme   developed   after 
incorporating   inputs   after   being   considered   by   the   expert 
group.   He further amplified that in order to ensure fairness 
in the evaluation work this final marking scheme as adopted by 
the expert group members  of which are drawn  from   6 regions 
countrywide   is   provided   to   Head   Examiners   who     further 
explained   the   marking   scheme   to   the   Examiners   immediately 
after  the examinations  and before  the exercise  of evaluation 
began     in   order   to   ensure   adoption   of   uniform   evaluation 
criteria by the evaluaters. 

Decision 

 8. The appellant stated that they desired to have copies of 
these documents which may be supplied to them within 3 weeks 
of   the   receipt   of   the   order.   In   the   matter   of   delay,   CPIO, 
Allahabad who was present in person at the hearing was given 
opportunity to explain the reasons for delay.   After hearing 
him the Commission concludes that there was   no mala­fide in 
delay   by   him   in   forwarding   point­1   to   holder   of   the 
information and deemed CPIO in the Board. Penalty proceedings 
are therefore not contemplated. 

9. Under  the powers vested in the Commission  under section 
25(5)   of   the   Act,   the   CPIO,   Allahabad   and   CPIO,   CBSE,   New 
Delhi   are   directed   to   put   in   place   a   credible   system   under 
which   RTI   applications   are   examined   and   disposed   of   in 
conformity with the provisions of the RTI Act.   This exercise 
is to be completed within 2 weeks of receipt of the order. 

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar

Copy to:­

1. Shri Amitava Choudhary
2C, Geetanjali Apartment, Ram Charan
Seth Road, Ramrajtala, 
Howrah­711104 (WB)

2. Shri  M.L. Chauhan
Asstt.Secretary, CPIO, 
Central Board of Secondary Education
2, Community Centre, 
Preet Vihar, Delhi­110092. 

3. The CPIO
Central Board of Secondary Education
Regional Office, 
35­B, Civil Station, M.G. Civil Lines
Allahabad­211001

4. The Appellate Authority
Central Board of Secondary Education
Regional Office, 
35­B, Civil Station, M.G. Civil Lines
Allahabad­211001