- 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
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'evaluated answer books'.
Found 2 results
taxmax posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportOn 08.06.2009, in the case of Maya Shanker Prabhaty v. ITO, the CIC had reserved its decision on disclosure of evaluated answer sheets of departmental examination (for promotion) on the basis of contention of CPIO that the matter was still pending with Apex Court (Pritam Rooz case) involving a serious question of law. Now, similarly another friend has been denied copy of his evaluated answer sheet of departmental examination and he has to file an appeal before CIC very soon and I do not think it is going to help in the wake of the decision of CIC as above; which I feel is erroneous in so far as merely a stay in a particular case involving CBSE examination might not be construed worthy to defer a decision regarding a promotional departmental examination which has clearly been held as a public document by the Hon'ble Caclutta High Court. However, could you please tell me the fate of Pritam Rooz v. Calcutta University at Supreme Court which had granted a stay in that case? And any other citation to make the appeal before CIC strong?
As reported by the Legal Reporter in telegraphindia.com on 6 March 2008: The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Metro | Answer script suit in high court Answer script suit in high court Several students turned up at the high court on Wednesday to attend the hearing of a case filed by a Presidency College student, asking to see his answer script under the Right to Information Act. Pritam Rooz, the third-year mathematics honours student, had requested the Calcutta University authorities to show him his honours paper V answer script. He had appeared for the paper last year during B.Sc Part II. The university authorities had turned down the request. Rooz then moved the high court, stating that the university had violated the Right to Information Act by not allowing him to see his answer script. On Wednesday, Justice Indira Banerjee fixed the matter for hearing on March 7. Rooz had obtained 28 marks out of 100 in his honours paper V. He applied to the university authorities for review of his answer script. Four marks were added following the process. Not satisfied with the increase, Rooz had asked to see his answer script. The university authorities informed him that the norms did not permit handing over of the answer scripts to the examinees. Rooz then wrote to the university authorities that the Right to Information Act empowered him to see his answer script. But the authorities again turned down the request, stating that the university rules did not come under the purview of the act. â€œI want to know from the court whether students have the right to see their answer scripts. A student should have the right to know whether his answer script was properly evaluated or not,â€ said Pritam, who filed the case in the high court in January. Viewing of answer scripts is a long-standing demand of students. In 2003, at least 300 Higher Secondary examinees had moved a PIL in the high court, calling for photocopies of answer scripts to be supplied with results. â€œThe court had turned down the plea but said the agencies that conduct examinations should make the result publication process more transparent. The students are now relying on the Right to Information Act,â€ said advocate Supradip Roy, who had appeared for the examinees.