Jump to content
News Ticker
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
  • 0
SurYansh Mishra

How Should i ask the PIO to furnish the candidates Answer sheet.

Question

SurYansh Mishra

Hi Sir,

How the Application is to be framed for the purpose of seeking evaluated answer sheet of a Particular candidate.

I want the scanned answer sheet of all the Subjects of the particular candidate appeared in Exam.

As a Single Answer sheet consists of 32 pages and Six subjects with 32 Pages each which makes total of 192 pages.

If i ask them to furnish the information in Hardcopy the same will be charged as Rs. 2 Per copy and If i ask them to send the Scanned copy of the Answer sheets in a Diskette or Floppy then the same will be provided at a much cheaper cost like 50/ item.

So Please guide me further in order to get the Evaluated answer sheet of that candidates of all six subject's answer sheet.

Thankyou.

 

 

Sent from my XT1663 using RTI INDIA mobile app

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Prasad GLN

You can never get such third party personal information as such information is having an exemption as per Sec. 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act.  If you have any large public interest in seeking information establish larger public interest in RTI application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
SurYansh Mishra
You can never get such third party personal information as such information is having an exemption as per Sec. 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act.  If you have any large public interest in seeking information establish larger public interest in RTI application.
Sir Please visit this Link https://blog.scconline.com/post/2018/06/13/cic-answer-sheet-of-other-candidates-can-also-be-sought-under-rti/

And Do reply to the thread.
Thankyou

Sent from my XT1663 using RTI INDIA mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Very very valuable information and you may send your RTI Application enclosing the hard copy of this as self-attested.

Experts in the forum always advised that to seek any information one requires from Public Information officer and only when PIO denies the information stating such exemption with justification, then before filing the first appeal, come to the forum for the contribution of ideas by other members.

At the time of RTI Application, only fees prescribed need to be paid.  It is the responsibility of PIO to provide such calculation and demand for such copying fees.  So first file an application and pay the demanded amount  by PIO as immediately as possible and ensure that he gives such calculation in his response.

You have not informed the authority with whom you are seeking such information as the same issue was discussed by courts in different manners like CBSE and IAS one way and departmental examinations in other way.

The second query is about the form of providing information. As per the RTI Act and as per DOPT directives, the information that is available as it is on their record has to be provided.  In other words, if the information exists in electronic form, it has to be provided in the form of CD and if the information is available as hard copy or in some other language, PIO cannot provide that hard copy information converting to soft copy, because the applicant has asked in that form.  PIO is not expected to scan and send it as it amounts to converting to another form.  Still, as advised seek such information as you desire and wait for a reply from PIO without expecting such response.

As the link you have provided is most useful I am providing the contents for use of our members, thanking you again for bringing those value piece of article.  We are all still holding that CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhya only as most authentic.

Central Information Commission (CIC): In a landmark case CIC held that a candidate can seek answer sheets of other candidates and that this is not marred by Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. However, it is subject to Sections 3 and 6.

The departmental examination which was conducted to decide the promotion on the job for the post of EO/AO comprised of four papers, out of which three were objective and one was descriptive in nature. Since the fourth paper was descriptive, no model answers were prepared. Around 3,000 candidates appeared in the exam out of which only 5 candidates were selected and this appellant was qualified but was not in the final list of four selected candidates as there were only four vacancies while the appellant stood at Number 5. Appellant wanted model answers for the Fourth Question paper also. The public authority has disclosed the questions and answers of all the candidates regarding three papers but refused to give four answer-sheets of four qualified candidates to the appellant. The appellant claimed that he wanted to check the answers given by four who topped above him and where he lacked in and if he was really ineligible to secure promotion.

The legality of demanding answer sheet in the examination is in principle upheld by the Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 provided that the request is made during a reasonable time in which the authorities are expected to retain the answer scripts. SC held that answer book also does not fall under any of the exemption provided under (a) to (j) of sub-section 1 of Section 8 of RTI Act. So, an examining body does not hold the evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e).

In Kewal Singh Gautam v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2011 Chh 143, Chhattisgarh High Court held that conduct of examination by the departmental agency for promotion in Govt. department, are not private activities, but in public domain and the checking and evaluation of answer sheet by an examiner and the marks given by him upon assessment of performance has nothing to do with the privacy of either the examiner or those who are responsible for conducting the examination so Section 8 (1)(j) is not attracted.

In Centre of Earth Science Studies v. Dr. Mrs. Anson Sebastian,  2010 SCC OnLine Ker 541, where one employee sought information pertaining to documents relating to domestic enquiry against another employee and also for getting entries in confidential report of six other employees of the appellant, repelling the claim of exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005, the Division Bench of High Court of Kerala held that provision of Section 8(1)(j) are not attracted.

CIC analysed that in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhya, (2011) 8 SCC 497 the Supreme Court said no, but on certain practical issues. The CBSE pleaded that if it has to share certified copies of answer-sheets of other to each and every candidate seeking under RTI, it would lead to chaos and divert substantial resources. In UPSC v. Angesh Kumar,  (2018) 4 SCC 530,  the Court read the inherent limitation in Sections 3 and 6 as pertaining to revelation of information that is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The Supreme Court referred to the problems in showing evaluated answer sheets in the UPSC Civil Services Examination in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC, (2013) 12 SCC 489.

CIC observed that the most important point was that the rejection in CBSE and UPSC cases was not based on any exception under Section 8(1) including (e) & (j). CIC concluded that no such difficulty exists in the present case and the appellant was entitled to get copies of answer sheet of the four candidates who topped. [Shailendra Kumar Singh v. PIO, EPFO, CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/614958, decided on 08-06-2018]

Credit: SCC on line- Contributed in blogs by Saha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy