CIC/SA/C/2015/000102. Case: Varun Sudan Vs PIO, Bar Council of India. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | CIC/SA/C/2015/000102 |
| Counsel | For Respondents: Awanish Kumar Pandey, Asstt. Sec. CPIO |
| Judges | M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 19(8)(a)(iii), 4(1)(b), 8, 8(1), 8(1)(e) |
| Judgement Date | December 16, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner 1. Complainant is not present. Mr. Awanish Kumar Pandey, Asstt. Sec. CPIO represents Public Authority. FACTS: 2. Complainant by his RTI application had sought attested photo-copy of OMR sheet of roll No. 1501469. Having received no information, complainant approached the Commission. Proceedings Before the Commission: 3. The CPIO stated that complainant had filed application along with required fee for re-evaluation of answer sheet, the agency which conducted the examination had re-evaluated the answer sheet but found the he failed in examination. Even after the re-evaluation his marks stood at 27 out of total 100, hence, declared failed. The CPIO also stated that they had denied copy of OMR sheet as per 2013 resolution of BCI. FAA in his order directed CPIO of BCI to contact the applicant and ask him to be present at re-evaluation. Accordingly, BCI arranged for the visit of the appellant, but he did not turn up in the re-evaluation. Decision: 4. Disclosure of answer sheets/OMR sheet has become a norm in post Right to Information era. This was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhayay and Others (2011) 8 SCC 497. Subsequently various High Courts have also reiterated the same view. Central Information Commission in the case of S.K. Pawar v. Railway Recruitment Board [CIC/AD/A/2010/001326/BS/4005] had observed as follows: "It is seen that a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court while dealing with a similar issue (viz. allowing inspection of the answer scripts to an examinee) vide decision dated 05/02/2009 in the matter of Aditya Bandopadhyay v. CBSE & Ors (W.P. No. 18189 (W) of 2008) has held as under: "We, however, consider the CIC to be perfectly justified in recommending to the examining bodies furnishing of assessed/evaluated answer scripts to the examinees upon publication of results so as to obviate any apprehension in their minds of unfair or arbitrary marking of the answers written by them. We hope and trust that the day is not far away when the WBBSE, the CBSE and the University shall accept such recommendation. On a wholesome appreciation of the submissions advanced on behalf of the public authorities, there appears to be a frantic attempt on their part to shield the examiners. But should errant examiners be protected The CBSE has even cited clause (e) of Section 8(1) as a ground for not allowing inspection of an answer script to any examinee............... The plea of fiduciary relationship, advanced by the CBSE has not impressed us... |
To continue reading
Request your trial