1. The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points related to promotion to the cadre of AAO Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 2018:

1. Kindly provide me the copies of answer sheets bearing Roll No. 1115891 which were evaluated and marked for all the subjects under Limited Departmental competitive Examination for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Accounts officer (LDCE-2018) held on 05.07.2018 to 08.07.2018. i.e. Paper-I: Financial Rules and procedures & Book Keeping, Paper-ll: Service Rules, Paper-lll: Postal Account, Paper-IV: Telecom Account, USOF and Taxation, Paper-V: Logical, Analytical & Quantitative Abilities and Language Skill, Paper-VI: Information Technology.

2. Kindly provide me the copies of key to Answer sheet used to evaluate and mark my answer sheet for Roll No. 1115891 under para 1 above.

3. Kindly provide me the copies of rules of eligibility criteria used for preparation of Merit List containing names of 949 candidates of AAO LDCE 2018 held from 5 to 8 July 2018 as per Annexure A to the O.M. F No. 301(08)/PA Admn.III/2012 to 2114 dated 01.01.2018. etc.

2. The CPIO/ACAO (Computer), Deptt. of Posts vide letter dated 06.11.2018 in respect to point no. 01 appellant was informed that Answer Sheets cannot be revealed as per Honorable Supreme Court Judgement pronounced in the matter of UPSC v. Angesh Kumar, Feb 2018, in Civil Appeal No. (s) 6159-6162 of 2013. Further in respect to point nos. 02 to 06 appellant was informed that No such information is available with this CPIO, hence cannot be supplied.

3. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 28.01.2019 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.

Hearing:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

4. The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Venu. C, through AC;

Respondent: Mr. Amit Tripathi, AO, through AC.

5. In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the hearing of the matter was scheduled through audio conference after giving prior notice to both the parties.

6. The Appellant at the outset submitted that the information sought regarding his own answer sheet should be provided to him as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In its reply, the Respondent reiterated the replies of the CPIO/FAA as also its written submission dated 13.05.2021 and submitted that with regards to disclosure of Answer key, the matter is under process and the same shall be uploaded on their website within 3 weeks from now. But the Respondent stuck to his earlier stand taken in a series of similar cases denying the answersheet citing the Supreme Courts judgement and the fact that the matter is pending litigation in the court. The Appellant also pleaded that there has been adequate suspicion that the Respondent may destroy the Answer Sheets related to the LDCE-AAO, 2018, exam citing its record retention policy. This was vehemently denied by the Respondent and he assured the Commission that no such act had been undertaken in order to destroy the answer sheets related to the said exam.

7. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Appellant dated 17.05.2021, which is taken on record.

8. With regard to copy of his own answer sheet sought by the Appellant, the Commission in plethora of orders has decided that the answer sheets should be furnished to the Applicants in his own case and the same stand is taken by the Commission in the instant matter also.

9. The Commission at the outset observed that in denying the answer sheet to the Appellants, the Respondent has been citing a decision of the Apex Court, which is neither applicable nor relevant to the examination held by them. Perusal of the decision reveals that the scope of the Apex Court decision in Angesh Kumar's case specifically deals with the Competitive exams. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC v. Angesh Kumar in Civil Appeal No. (s) 6159-6162 of 2013 decided on 20.02.2018 had observed that as following:

“……..we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced”

10. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is thus limited to the Competitive Exams which do not cover the Departmental Exams per-se held by the Public Authorities nor is applicable to situations where it is prima-facie made out that larger public interest is involved. Moreover, the Commission sees this as a serious case wherein multiple Second Appeals related to the said exam are being heard by the Commission on regular basis.

11. The Commission further observes that the issue to access his/her own answer sheet by a candidate had been long settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay SLP (C) No. 7526/2009 decision dated 9 August, 2011, wherein it was observed that every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or taking certified copies thereof unless the same was exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. The relevant observations made in the judgment are as under:

“11. The definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the RTI Act refers to any material in any form which includes records, documents, opinions, papers among several other enumerated items. The term ‘record’ is defined in section 2(i) of the said Act as including any document, manuscript or file among others. When a candidate participates in an examination and writes his answers in an answer-book and submits it to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer-book is a document or record When the answer-book is evaluated by an examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer-book becomes a record containing the ‘opinion' of the examiner. Therefore the evaluated answer-book is also an ‘information’ under the RTI Act”

12. It was furthermore stated in Para 14 of the above-mentioned judgment

“The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer-books are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as they are ‘information’ held in its fiduciary relationship. They fairly conceded that evaluated answer-books will not fall under any other exemptions in sub section (1) of section 8. Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or take certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer-books are found to be exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.”

13. It was furthermore stated in Para 18 of the above mentioned judgment

“In these cases, the High Court has rightly denied the prayer for reevaluation of answer-books sought by the candidates in view of the bar contained in the rules and regulations of the examining bodies. It is also not a relief available under the RTI Act. Therefore the question whether reevaluation should be permitted or not, does not arise for our consideration. What arises for consideration is the question whether the examinee is entitled to inspect his evaluated answer-books or take certified copies thereof. This right is claimed by the students, not with reference to the rules or bye-laws of examining bodies, but under the RTI Act which enables them and entitles them to have access to the answer-books as ‘information’ and inspect them and take certified copies thereof. Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer-books fall under the exempted category of information described in clause (e) of section 8(1) of RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer-books, even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under the rules/bye-laws of the examining body governing the examinations. Therefore, the decision of this Court in Maharashtra State Board (supra) and the subsequent decisions following the same, will not affect or interfere with the right of the examinee seeking inspection of answer-books or taking certified copies thereof”

14. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay was further relied in the decision pronounced on 16.08.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kumar Shanu v. CBSE in I.A. No. 01/2016 in Contempt Petition No. 9837/2016 Civil Appeal NO. 6454/2011.

15. The Commission also referred to several other decisions pertaining to disclosure of a candidate's own answer script. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Treesha Irish v. CPIO, WP (C) No. 6352 of 2006 dated 30.08.2010 while deciding that a candidate was entitled to his own answer sheet had held as under:

21…………………. The valued answer paper, if at all, can be personal information relating to the candidate who has written the same. When the candidate applies for copy of the same, it cannot be denied to the candidate on the ground that it is personal information, insofar as, if that information would compromise anybody, it is the candidate himself/herself The conduct of the examination for selection to the post of Last Grade officials is certainly a public activity and therefore the valuation of answer papers of that examination has relationship to a public activity of the department in the matter of selection to a higher post. A candidate writing an examination has a right to have his answer paper valued correctly and he has a right to know whether the same has been done properly and correctly. Both the public authority and the examiner have a public duty to get the valuation done correctly and properly, which is a public activity and duty. Therefore the supply of the copy of the answer paper, which is for enabling the candidate to ascertain whether the valuation of the answer paper has been done correctly and properly, has relationship to a public activity or interest.

23. There is no provision anywhere in the Act to the effect that information can be refused to be disclosed if no public interest is involved. Of course in a case of personal information, if it has no relationship with any public activity or interest, the information officer has discretion to refuse to disclose the same, if the larger public interest does not justify disclosure of such information. But on the ground of lack of public interest involved alone, the public information officer cannot refuse to disclose the information, without a finding first that the information is personal information having no relationship to any public activity or interest. I am at a loss to understand how disclosure of the valued answer paper would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection process. If at all, it would only enhance the fairness and impartiality of the selection process by holding out to the candidates that anybody can ascertain the fairness and impartiality by examining the valued answer papers. In fact, an ideal situation would be to furnish a copy of the answer paper along with the mark lists of the candidates so that they can satisfy themselves that the answer papers have been valued properly and they secured the marks they deserved for the answers written by them. Therefore the reason given in Ext P3, by the 1st respondent, is patently unsustainable.”

16. Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of SBI v. Mohd. Sahjahan LPA 714/2010 dated 09.05.2017 had held as under:

11. In the case in hand, the examiner has returned the answer books to the SBI after completion of the examination. In the light of the principles laid down in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay the examining body (the SBI in this case) does not hold the evaluated answer sheets (in the written exam) or the assessment sheet of the interview in a fiduciary relationship, qua the examiner/member of the interview board.

17. Furthermore, in a recent decision in the matter of Mradul Mishra v. Chairman, U.P. Public Service Commission, Civil Appeal No. 6723 of 2018 (Arising Out of SLP No. 33006 of 2017) dated 16.07.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had while deciding the issue as to whether the Appellant is entitled to see the answer sheets of the examination in which he participated, held as under:

“14. In our opinion, permitting a candidate to inspect the answer sheet does not involve any public interest nor does it affect the efficient operation of the Government. There are issues of confidentiality and disclosure of sensitive information that may arise, but those have already been taken care of in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay where it has categorically been held that the identity of the examiner cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality.

15. That being the position, we have no doubt that the Appellant is entitled to inspect the answer sheets. Accordingly, we direct the Respondent - U.P. Public Service Commission to fix the date, time and place where the Appellant can come and inspect the answer sheet within four weeks.”

18. The Commission also felt that issue under consideration involves Larger Public Interest affecting the fate of all the students/candidates who wish to obtain information regarding their own answer sheet which would understandably have a bearing on their future career prospects which in turn would ostensibly affect their right to life and livelihood. Hence, allowing inspection of their own answer sheet to the students/candidates ought to be allowed as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

DECISION

19. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the partiesand in the light of the decisions cited above pertaining to the right of a candidate to seek his own answer sheet, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish a copy of his own answer sheets to the Appellant as sought in the RTI Application, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation of the Commission.

20. As regards the Answer Key for AAO-LDCE, 2018 exam, the Commission directs the Respondent to upload the same on their official website within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, as agreed.

21. The Commission further directs the Respondent that with respect to query no. 4 to 6, furnish a revised reply to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The Commission also takes note of the statement of the Respondent that there is no decision afoot to destroy the answer-sheets of the said exam and sees it in the form of an assurance. No further intervention by this Commission is required in the matter.

22. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.