rti_decision on answer sheets_ad-26032009-01

8/7/2019 RTI_Decision on Answer Sheets_AD-26032009-01

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rtidecision-on-answer-sheetsad-26032009-01 1/4

Central Information Commission

CIC/AD/A/09/00162

Dated March 26, 2009

Name of the Applicant : Mr.G.Gurunadham

Name of the Pu blic Authority : BSNL, Hyderabad

Background

1. The Applicant filed a RTI application dt.11.7.08 with the CPIO, BSNL, Hyderabad.

He stated that he had appeared for SDE Competitive Exam held during July 2007

and results were declared on 8.7.08. His name was not in the list. He

wanted marks and photocopies of answer sheet. The ACPIO replied on 14.8.08

stating that the disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would render thesystem of conduct of examinations unworkable in practice. Also, the disclosure

will endanger the life or physical safety of the persons associated with the

examination process. He also added that the information sought is regretted in

accordance with the full bench decision of the CIC and u/s 8(1) (g) of the Act.

The applicant filed an appeal dt.20.9.08 with the Appellate Authority. The

Appellate Authority replied on 10.11.08. In his reply, he mentioned as follows:

i) Every year BSNL conducts various departmental / direct recruitment

examinations involving thousands of candidates. A common procedure is being

followed for conduction of all the examinations based on the BSNL recruitment rules.

It is pertinent to mention that the examination process is executed entirely within

the organization. Departmental officers are nominated as paper setters as well as

examiners in addition to their normal duties.

ii) Most of the examinations are descriptive in nature giving scope for

variations in the allocation of marks. The disclosure of answer sheets will result

in challenging of such variations in the Hon’ble Court of Law. Due to these

reasons, officers are not willing to volunteer as examiners. Since it is not

possible to isolate the identity of the examiner from the answer sheets, they arefeeling insecure about their life or career due to apprehensions of litigations

raised in the evaluation of answer sheets. Moreover, when the evaluated answer

sheets are challenged in courts, the entire recruitment process comes to a halt

until the decision is given by the court. This results in deficiency of man power

which subsequently hampers the developmental activities of the organization.

The applicant filed a second appeal dt.18.12.08 before CIC. While reiterating his

previous submissions as made in the RTI application and the First Appeal, the



Appellant denied that the Full Bench decision of the CIC passed on the issue of

Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act 2005 is at all applicable in this case. The Appellant

also reiterated the stance taken in his First Appeal while contending that

information sought could have been provided by suitably blocking/masking the

identity particulars, if any, of the examiner while taking out Xerox copy of theoriginal.

2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the

hearing on March 6, 2009.

3. None represented the Public Authority.

4. The Applicant was also not present during the hearing.

Decision

5. After perusal of the various submissions of the parties in this case, the Commission

also takes note of the Full Bench decision of the CIC being in Complaint No.

CIC/WB/C2006/00223; Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394; Appeal Nos.

CIC/OK/A/2006/00266/00058/00066/00315 titled as Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs.

Harish Chander & Ors., relevant extract whereof is as hereunder:

“…. In regard to public examinations conducted by institutions established by the

Constitution like UPSC or institutions established by any enactment by theParliament or Rules made thereunder like CBSE, Staff Selection commission,

Universities., etc, the function of which is mainly to conduct examinations and

which have an established system as fool-proof as that can be, and which, by

their own rules or regulations prohibit disclosure of evaluated answer sheets or

where the disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would result in rendering the

system unworkable in practice and on the basis of the rationale followed by the

Supreme Court in the above two cases, we would like to put at rest the matter of

disclosure of answer sheets. W e therefore decide that in such cases, a

citizen cannot seek disclosure of the evaluated answ er sheets under the

RTI Act, 2005.

40. Insofar as examinations conducted by other public authorities, the main

function of which is not of conducting examinations, but only for filling up of

posts either by promotion or by recruitment, be it limited or public, the rationale

of the judgments of the Supreme Court may not be applicable in their totality, as

in arriving at their conclusions, the above judgments took into consideration



various facts like the large number of candidates, the method and criteria of

selection of examiners, existence of a fool-proof system with proper checks and

balances etc. Therefore, in respect of these examinations, the disclosure of the

answer sheets shall be the general rule but each case may have to be examined

individually to see as to whether disclosure of evaluated answer sheets wouldrender the system unworkable in practice. If that be so, the disclosure of the

evaluated answer sheets could be denied but not otherwise. However, while

doing so the concerned authority should ensure that the name and identity of the

examiner, supervisor or any other person associated with the process of

examination is in no way disclosed so as to endanger the life or physical

safety of such person. If it is not possible to do so in such cases, the authority

concerned may decline the disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets u/s 8 (1)

(g)…”

6. In the light of the foregoing facts as well as settled law, the Commission directs

the CPIO to furnish all the information as sought by the Appellant in his RTI

application, being the marks and Photocopies of the Answer sheets, within a

period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this Order. In case the CPIO

deems fit, he may block/severe such part of the information (answer sheet) as

may be considered exempt from disclosure under provisions of the Section 10(1)

of the RTI Act 2005. Copy of the information furnished to the Appellant may

also be submitted before the Commission within the stipulated period of 15working days.

7. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.

(Annapurna Dixit)Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:

(K.G.Nair)Designated Officer



Cc:

1. Mr.G.GurunadhamJTO (Indoor)MBM, AutonagarNellore SSA

AP Circle

2. Mr.M.DiwakarThe ACPIO & AGM (Legal)Bharat Sanchar Nigam LimitedO/o Chief General Manager TelecomA.P.CircleHyderabad 500 001

3. The Appellate Authority & The Chief General ManagerBharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

O/o Chief General Manager TelecomA.P.CircleHyderabad 500 001

4. Officer in charge, NIC

5. Press E Group, CIC

rti_decision on answer sheets_ad-26032009-01

Documents