Appeal No.242/SIC/2011 Decided on: 15/07/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON

Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa

Coram : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Appeal No.242/SIC/2011

Decided on: 15/07/2014

Shri Vishal Naik

R/o. H.No. 128/1, Rua De Maria,

Sancoale, Cortalim, Goa ..….…..Appellant

V/s

1. Shri Pradip K. Kusnur/Public Information Officer

Directorate of Technical Education,

Porvorim, Goa.

2. Shri Vivek B. Kamat/The First Appellate Authority

Directorate of Technical Education,

Porvorim, Goa. ……..Respondents

O R D E R (Open Court)

RTI application filed on : 30/05/2011

PIO reply dated : 08/07/2011

First Appeal filed on : 11/07/2011

FAA Order dated : 10/08/2011

Second Appeal filed on : 21/11/2011

1) This second appeal arises out of original RTI application dated 30/05/2011 made to PIO /Dy. Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Porvorim, Goa regarding certified copies of evaluated answer sheet and key/model answer paper of Vishal Naik appearing for examination for the course of Diploma in Computer Engineering.

2) The RTI application is filed on 30/05/2011. He asked 5 querries each one for evaluated answer sheet and model answer paper for 5 different subjects in which he had taken the examination. Although the application mentions that the information is concerned with “Life and Liberty” and hence may be supplied within 48 hours, it has not been elaborated as to how the Life and Liberty are threatened without the information.

3) The PIO sought information from the Secretary, Board of Technical Education who is the custodian of the answer papers written by students. A reply received from him was supplied to the Appellant on 08/07/2011.

Contd---2/-

--2--

The reply stated that the Board does not have model answers however as and when they available in future they will be uploaded on the website. As for the evaluated answer book, since they include the names of examiners, the same cannot be given in view of fiduciary relationship between the examiners and students.

4) The FAA has ordered in a first appeal that the Respondent shall permit appellant to inspect evaluated answer sheets after ensuring that the name and identity of the examiner, moderator and any other person involved in the evaluation process is masked, by taking appropriate steps to ensure that access to the part of evaluated answer sheets containing name and identify of officials involved in the evaluation process, is prevented.

5) The second appeal was filed by appellant on the ground that the order of FAA goes against the RTI Act and the appellant is entitled to certified copies of answer books.

Further, during the hearing of the first appeal itself, the Appellant had delivered on 09/08/2011, a copy of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011. He had pointed out how the Hon. Supreme Court upheld the right of student despite above judgement the FAA has permitted only the inspection of the evaluated answer sheet but not certified copies.

6) He therefore prayed that directions be issued to furnish the information i.e certified copies of evaluated answer sheets without further delay.

7) The second appeal was filed on 21/11/2011. The PIO and Respondent No. 1 filed his reply on 23/01/2012 and additional reply on 26/04/2012. He has also referred to the same supreme court judgement between Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. V/s Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. The said judgement in para 38 states that

In view of the foregoing, the order of the High Court directing the examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer books is affirmed, subject to the clarifications regarding the scope of the RTI Act and the safeguards conditions subject to which information should be furnished. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

8) The Respondent No. 1 states that in view of the Supreme Court Judgement the appellant herein was offered inspection of his answer books. Hence the appellant can have the inspection whenever he wants hence the second appeal be dismissed.

Contd ----3/-

--3--

9) The Appellant has also submitted his rejoinder on 02/07/2014 and made his oral argument also on last date of hearing on 15/07/2014. In this he has given references to certain minor and irrelevant alleged mistakes of PIO but not answered the main point of the PIO’s argument that in the concluding para, The Hon. Supreme Court has simply directed that the examinee can inspect the answer books and the supreme court has not stated anything further and thus the reply of the PIO does not lack any merit. I agree with the argument of the PIO.

--O R D E R---

In view of the above appeal is dismissed. The operative part of the order is declared in Open Court. Parties may be informed of this detailed judgement.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji – Goa.