Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000070
Dated February 5, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Yogeshwar Saini
Name of the Public Authority : National Board of Examinations
Background
1. The Applicant filed a RTI application dt.8.8.09 with the PIO, NBE requesting for
information against 6 points with regard to Theory examination in the subject of
DNB(Orthopaedics) June 2009(Final).Capt.K.Paul James, PIO replied on 5.10.09
stating that the RTI application was received on 12.8.09 and involves collating
information from the Records Section, Confidential Section and Examination Section
and that he has strived hard to provide the desired information and requested the
Applicant to appreciate the fact that NBE has been seized with the activities of conduct
of DNB examinations, evaluation of DNB CET and final examinations, declaration of
results, conduct of the Forthcoming Foreign Medical Graduates Examinations for which
there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of applications up to the
tune of 100%. He further added that besides being the PIO of NBE, he has also been
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of Asst. Director (MCQ) Section and
Vigilance Officer. The MCQ Section currently has the peak work load during the
months of June and September 2009 and requested that delay be condoned. He also
provided point wise information. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an
appeal dt.10.10.09 with the Appellate Authority stating that the reply furnished by the
PIO is incomplete and unsatisfactory as information sought against points 4, 5 and 6
has been denied under the pretext that information is not available with NBE.
Dr.A.K.Sood, Appellate Authority replied on 5.11.09 stating that as for points 4 and 5,
the Question papers (I to IV) for DNB Final Theory (Orthopaedics) have been set by
respective Examiners and as per the records available in the office of NBE, information
on any particular question that appeared in the final theory (Orthopaedics)
examination of June 2009 is not available with NBE. He also provided the detailed
clarification against point 6 of the RTI application. Dr.A.K.Sood vide his letter
dt.10.11.09 to the applicant also enclosed an online counseling form which will help
the subject matter expert in Orthopedics to answer any queries. He also stated that
in case the Applicant desires a meeting with the subject matter expert for personal
counseling, the same can also be fixed whereby candidate can seek all the
clarifications personally and that a one day CME for DNB candidates on how to
attempt theory questions in examination is also being held on 14.11.09 at the
Department of Surgery, Safdarjung Hospital. Candidates can come to attend the
same where the subject matter experts would answer the queries related to theory
examination. The Appellate Authority also enclosed a list of DVDs related to
orthopedics examination. However, still not satisfied, the Applicant filed a second
appeal dt.12.11.09 before CIC
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing
for February 5, 2010.
3. Capt. K.Paul James, PIO and Dr.Rakesh Gosain, Stdg. Counsel represented the Public
Authority.
4. The Appellant was heard through audio conferencing, partly while the Respondents
were present and partly after they left due to faulty lines
Decision
5. The Respondent Capt.K.Paul James vide his rejoinder dt.3.2.10 to the Commission
submitted that the present RTI application is mainly focused on the DNB Final Theory
Examination Question Paper I and III of June 2009. The Paper I allegedly contained a
single error i.e. the question No.9 of the paper had wrongly mentioned the word
‘Focal’ as ‘Facial’ , which is a typographical error and in Paper III, question 4, the word
‘radius’ was missing inadvertently. He added that the correction of alleged
typographical mistakes in question papers are not intentional mistakes and these
typing mistakes are inadvertent and to appreciate the mistake it has to be appreciated
that NBE is conducting PG and Post PG level examinations in more than 54 specialties
besides other examinations and their respective practical examinations. He further
added that at the time of drafting of question paper it is the examiners, moderators
and typists who are aware of the contents and the same is highly confidential activity
and no unassociated person is permitted to even interact with them during the said
activity. If the question papers are made to undergo the ‘proof reading’ a new layer of
persons will have to be created and the chances of paper leakage increase. He also
added that in almost more than 54 x 4 papers(conducted on the same day) only two
alleged mistakes have been reported. Ordinarily the mistakes are never found in
question papers but in case the same are found then the Centre Supervisors and
Appraisers are the key persons to contact NBE control room and corrective measures
are suggested instantly as has been done in the instant case. He further added that
NBE came to know of the mistake and the Centre Supervisors and Appraisers at all the
examination centres had categorically announced and rectified this mistake at all the
centers at the beginning of the examination. He also added that not a single
representation/grievance/complaint has been received by the NBE in respect of these
insignificant typographical errors from any of the candidates. In question 4 of paper
III, it is alleged that the term ‘radius’ was missing. However, the said omission was
also duly rectified and announced at the centre itself. Without prejudice to aforesaid
he admitted submitted that even otherwise, the question without the term ‘radius’ is
correct. He further added that during a sample randomized survey conducted on
3.2.10 it has been found that in the said question 9 of paper I, the candidates have
scored 2nd highest average marks and the pass percentage of June 2009 is the third
best from among the last 8 examinations.
6. The Respondent, Shri Gosain further submitted that prior to 10.7.09 marks were not
disclosed and after that marks are being disclosed. He stated that separate sheet is
being maintained for each candidate and there are 59 x 4 mark sheets which need to
be collated as the marks during that period were not maintained in the format as
sought by the Appellant. The Appellant who was heard over the phone stated that
information against point 6 was not provided and that against 4 and 5 no information
has been furnished under the pretext that it is not available. He insisted that
information against point 6 is of great importance to him. The Respondent submitted
that even though information sought against 4 and 5 are not as defined under section
2(f) of the RTI Act, however, the Appellate Authority provided detailed clarification
vide his order dt.5.11.09. He further added that the marks obtained are not
available center wise and that any candidate can retrieve his marks now from the
website after entering his Roll Number.
7. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides, holds that information
sought in points 4 and 5 of the RTI application is not ‘information’ as defined in the
RTI Act as the Appellant is seeking medical details on the subject of Orthopaedics
which can be obtained from any text book. However, the PIO is directed to provide
attested copies of the mark sheets of selected candidates in the form in which they
exist, to the Appellant. With regard to point 6 , the PIO to provide information as
sought by the Appellant, if available on record. If not, an affidavit may be furnished to
the Appellant informing him about its non-availability. A copy of the PIO’s reply dated
3.2.2010 may also be furnished to the Appellant.
8. The information should reach the Appellant by 5.3.10 and the Appellant is directed to
submit a compliance report to the Commission by 12.3.10.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Yogeshwar Saini
H.No.70-C, Taylor Road
Amritsar
Punjab
2. The PIO
National Board of Examinations
PSP Area
Sector-9
Dwarka
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
National Board of Examinations
PSP Area
Sector-9
Dwarka
New Delhi
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC