Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'examination paper'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Request for Community Support
  • Connect with Community
  • Learn about RTI
  • Website News & Support
  • Read RTI News & Stories
  • RTI Act Critics's RTI Act Critics Topics
  • Fans of RTI India's Fans of RTI India Topics
  • Insurance Consumer's Insurance Consumer Topics
  • Activists of Transparency and Accountability's Activists of Transparency and Accountability Topics
  • Issues with BWSSB's Issues with BWSSB Topics
  • Law+Order-Bangalore-32's Law+Order-Bangalore-32 Topics
  • Issues With Electricity Board's Issues With Electricity Board Topics
  • RTI Activists's RTI Activists Topics
  • YOGA's YOGA Topics
  • help each other's help each other Topics
  • forest and wild life's forest and wild life Topics
  • Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C.'s Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C. Topics
  • RTI Activist+Politics's RTI Activist+Politics Topics
  • hostels and lodging places's hostels and lodging places Topics
  • RTI Activists in Rajasthan.'s RTI Activists in Rajasthan. Topics
  • RTI info warriors in Haryana's RTI info warriors in Haryana Topics
  • DisABILITY Rights and RTI's DisABILITY Rights and RTI Topics
  • Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI.'s Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI. Topics
  • Eco club's Eco club Topics
  • Self Employment in Sport's Self Employment in Sport Topics
  • RTI related to land issue's RTI related to land issue Topics
  • Open SourceTechnology support to RTI's Open SourceTechnology support to RTI Topics
  • TRAP group's TRAP group Topics
  • Odisha RTI Activists's Odisha RTI Activists Topics
  • right to information activists's right to information activists Topics
  • Mumbai's Mumbai Topics
  • RTI ACTIVISTS FROM KARNATAKA's RTI ACTIVISTS FROM KARNATAKA Topics
  • Chartered Accountants's Chartered Accountants Topics
  • ngosamachar's ngosamachar Topics
  • Growing INDIA's Growing INDIA Topics
  • we are all friends.'s we are all friends. Topics
  • RTI for Government employees's RTI for Government employees Topics
  • Dhanus - Pending Salaries's Dhanus - Pending Salaries Topics
  • Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors's Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Topics
  • Mahamumbai's Mahamumbai Topics
  • FREE LEGAL HELP AND SUGGESTIONS's FREE LEGAL HELP AND SUGGESTIONS Topics
  • M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech's M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech Topics
  • Corruption's Corruption Topics
  • ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION's ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Topics
  • MAHARASHTRA- ADVOCATE/LAWYERS's MAHARASHTRA- ADVOCATE/LAWYERS Topics
  • INDIAN WOMEN- LAWYERS /ADVOCATES's INDIAN WOMEN- LAWYERS /ADVOCATES Topics
  • minority engineering colleges in maharashtra's minority engineering colleges in maharashtra Topics
  • AAKANKSHA's AAKANKSHA Topics
  • RTI AGAINST INDIAN AIR FORCE MALPRACTISE's RTI AGAINST INDIAN AIR FORCE MALPRACTISE Topics
  • RiGhTs's RiGhTs Topics
  • ram's ram Topics
  • JVG DUPED CUST.'s JVG DUPED CUST. Topics
  • anti corrupt police's anti corrupt police Topics
  • Save Girl in Punjab's Save Girl in Punjab Topics
  • Rent Apartment in US's Rent Apartment in US Topics
  • RTI Kerala's RTI Kerala Topics
  • maharashtra's maharashtra Topics
  • Right Way Of India(RTI)'s Right Way Of India(RTI) Topics
  • Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India's Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India Topics
  • Navi Mumbai's Navi Mumbai Topics
  • electricity curruption in up's electricity curruption in up Topics
  • SHARE n STOCKS trading's SHARE n STOCKS trading Topics
  • WEWANTJUSTICE's WEWANTJUSTICE Topics
  • Civil Engineers-CAD's Civil Engineers-CAD Topics
  • Nitin Aggarwal's Nitin Aggarwal Topics
  • MEWAT EDUCATION AWARENESS's MEWAT EDUCATION AWARENESS Topics
  • ex-serviceman activities's ex-serviceman activities Topics
  • SSCC's SSCC Topics
  • Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates's Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates Topics
  • jharkhand RTI activist group's jharkhand RTI activist group Topics
  • Suhail's Suhail Topics
  • govt.servant's govt.servant Topics
  • RTI Uttar pradesh's RTI Uttar pradesh Topics
  • anti-corruption team's anti-corruption team Topics
  • Manaism's Manaism Topics
  • Insurance's Insurance Topics
  • sonitpur datri sewa samity's sonitpur datri sewa samity Topics
  • indian youth manch's indian youth manch Topics
  • HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies's HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies Topics
  • youth's youth Topics
  • aastha's aastha Topics
  • RTI for Citizens's RTI for Citizens Topics
  • ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS OF INDIA's ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS OF INDIA Topics
  • learn always's learn always Topics
  • R.T.I.'s R.T.I. Topics
  • Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana's Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana Topics
  • Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna's Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna Topics
  • MBA, business and new entrepreneur.....'s MBA, business and new entrepreneur..... Topics
  • students seeking help's students seeking help Topics
  • UN-DO CORRUPTION's UN-DO CORRUPTION Topics
  • RTI Corporate's RTI Corporate Topics
  • Electrical group's Electrical group Topics
  • V4LRights's V4LRights Topics
  • Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool's Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool Topics
  • Gaming's Gaming Topics
  • WE Born to help's WE Born to help Topics
  • help the elderly citizen's help the elderly citizen Topics
  • NATIONAL ISSUE's NATIONAL ISSUE Topics
  • Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association's Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association Topics
  • Corruption free Country's Corruption free Country Topics
  • surajyam's surajyam Topics
  • kanpurvictims's kanpurvictims Topics
  • Railway Group A Services's Railway Group A Services Topics
  • RTI BALLIA's RTI BALLIA Topics
  • Encroachment of public property by private giants's Encroachment of public property by private giants Topics
  • Case Status - Anti Corruption's Case Status - Anti Corruption Topics
  • RTI ACTIVISTS FROM MEERUT's RTI ACTIVISTS FROM MEERUT Topics
  • Aam Aadmi (The Common Man)'s Aam Aadmi (The Common Man) Topics
  • Court Marriage in Punjab's Court Marriage in Punjab Topics
  • ALL's ALL Topics
  • Youth India Social Group (YISG)'s Youth India Social Group (YISG) Topics
  • ye kya fandda h's ye kya fandda h Topics
  • mindset's mindset Topics
  • anti corruption's anti corruption Topics
  • activism's activism Topics
  • common's common Topics
  • state group's state group Topics
  • social help group's social help group Topics
  • landlords of uttar pradesh's landlords of uttar pradesh Topics
  • Concern Citizens Forum for India's Concern Citizens Forum for India Topics
  • edusystem's edusystem Topics
  • Ratna Jyoti's Ratna Jyoti Topics
  • development in indian village's development in indian village Topics
  • technovision's technovision Topics
  • Mighty India's Mighty India Topics
  • Against Corporate Fraud's Against Corporate Fraud Topics
  • Stop crime's Stop crime Topics
  • PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION.'s PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION. Topics
  • NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti's NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Topics
  • Authenticated Public Plateform's Authenticated Public Plateform Topics
  • shalin's shalin Topics
  • terminater's terminater Topics
  • RTI Wind Energy's RTI Wind Energy Topics
  • AMICE (INDIA)'s AMICE (INDIA) Topics
  • HELPING HAND !'s HELPING HAND ! Topics
  • Go..................?'s Go..................? Topics
  • Co-Op Housing Society's Co-Op Housing Society Topics
  • we are equal's we are equal Topics
  • Phoenix Deals's Phoenix Deals Topics
  • AHMEDABAD ACTIVISTS's AHMEDABAD ACTIVISTS Topics
  • Theft Cases in chandigarh's Theft Cases in chandigarh Topics
  • Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits's Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits Topics
  • Solar Systems's Solar Systems Topics
  • Get aware about ur Education and related rights's Get aware about ur Education and related rights Topics
  • Save Mumbai's Save Mumbai Topics
  • Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board's Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board Topics
  • ashayen's ashayen Topics
  • unemployment's unemployment Topics
  • Employee Solution's Employee Solution Topics
  • is kanpur university against sc/st's is kanpur university against sc/st Topics
  • URBAN PLANNER PROFESSIONAL's URBAN PLANNER PROFESSIONAL Topics
  • RTI HELP INDIA's RTI HELP INDIA Topics
  • prayatna's prayatna Topics
  • Parking woes's Parking woes Topics
  • Helping RTI INDIA web development's Helping RTI INDIA web development Topics

Categories

  • Uncategorized
  • Section 18 (1)
  • Section 11
  • For Common Man
  • Section 16
  • Section 2(h)
  • Section 8 (1)(j)
  • Simplified RTI
  • Government Employee and RTI
  • RTI Act 2005
  • Success Stories
  • Exempt Organisation
  • DG IT
  • Section 8 (1) (e)
  • Section 2 (h) (d) (i)
  • Supreme Court Decisions
  • Section 2 (j) (i)
  • Section 2
  • Section 8
  • Section 20
  • Section 19
  • SIC Punjab
  • High Court Decisions
  • Section 9
  • Section 24
  • DoPT
  • RTI Awareness
  • Section 6 (3)
  • Section 6
  • Section 2 (f)
  • Opinion
  • Department of Posts
  • Ministry of Railways
  • Departments
  • Ministry of Home Affairs
  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs
  • Ministry of Law & Justice
  • Government of NCT of Delhi
  • Delhi Police
  • Ministry of Human Resource Development
  • Staff Selection Commission
  • Court Decisions
  • CIC Decisions
  • Activism
  • Section 25
  • University
  • Section 7
  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Section 3
  • RTI Discussions
  • Section 19 (8) (b)
  • BSNL & MTNL
  • Section (1) (d)
  • Section 8 (1) (d)
  • DIrectorate of Education
  • Govt of NCT of Delhi
  • Cooperative Housing Society
  • RTI for School
  • Member RTI
  • Municipal Corporation
  • Ministry of Defence

Categories

  • RTI Directory
  • Important RTI Decisions
  • Other Important Court Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts & Circulars

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Found 14 results

  1. Hello, Firstly, this is a wonderful platform. Secondly, I want to RTI NMIMS University. However: 1. NMIMS website and byelaws and resource brochures do not disclose RTI details required by law under Section 4 and other sections. Where do I complain and how? 2. I'm filing RTI for certified copy of answer sheet. Do I have to enclose Rs.2 per page of answer sheet photocopy along with Rs.10 of application fee? What do I do if I don't remember how many pages the answer sheet had? 3. I want to pay by Demand Draft. What name do I write on Payee? Thank you!
  2. Dear members, My first post here, I will do the introductions later I need some assistance in filing an appeal to an RTI appellate authority. Some context: I am not satisfied with my scored achieved in the common admission test in November 2011, for which the results were published in Jan 2012. The purpose of filing this RTI is two-fold - Firstly, to determine exactly how well or badly I have done in the examination, and secondly, for some transparency in the entire process. Some background information: The Common Admission Test (CAT) is a prerequisite for entry to the Indian Institutes of Management and many other business schools in India. Since 2009, this examination has been computer based (though not computer adaptive). Many aspects of the examination (Including actual conduct of the examination) has been outsourced to Prometric, a multinational specializing in such tasks. There has been a total lack of transparency in the entire evaluation process. Firstly, the examination is held over several days. The examiners have refused to confirm that questions may repeat across multiple sessions/days. They have only imposed a non disclosure agreement on the candidates. However, you yourself may judge the effectiveness of this when there are in excess of 200,000 test takers. Secondly, the scoring. In the good old days of pencil and paper tests, a candidate recieved a certain number of marks (say 3) for correct answers, and some marks (say 1) were deducted for incorrect answers. In due course, the IIMs would release an answer key. The candidate could, thus, tally his answers with the key and check if the score is roughly equal to what it should be. If it isn't, the candidate can choose what to do about it. Nowadays, only section-wise scaled scores and the total score is provided. The exam conductors, Prometric, have repeatedly stated that , But they refuse to tell us what equivalence (formula) was used, and how they arrived at it. More importantly, a candidate has absolutely no idea of how many questions he got right and wrong. Steps taken: First, I e-mailed a candidate helpline address asking for information. I have attached it, with the reply I received. The reply which refused to answer the questions, but told me to contact catcentre@iimcal.ac.in. I contacted the aforesaid e-mail address, asking them how to file the RTI. There was no response. Thus, I decided to file an RTI application. Since IIM Calcutta was responsible for conducting the CAT this year, that is the place I chose to begin filing the application. A google search revealed this page. The proforma is given here. Even though they accept online applications, I sent it by courier. (Perhaps it should have been sent by speed post/registered post, but that is not the point of contention.) I have attached the RTI query as an attachment. Now some points: 1. The courier was accepted by IIM Calcutta on Feb 16. When no information was forthcoming, on March 30, I sent an e-mail reminder to the PIO. He replied that the query had been forwarded to the concerned department, and told me that a reminder would be sent to them. The mail containing refusal to supply the information came only on April 10. My first question: Can any action be taken against the people concerned for the delay in replying to the RTI? 2. The reply that came on April 10 by e-mail was as follows: Some points come to my mind: a) Is it possible that I mentioned the incorrect department in my RTI application? As an outsider, I do not have detailed information on the internal workings of the institute. Is it mandatory for the applicant to know the right department? Or is the PIO responsible for forwarding it to the right department? b) More likely, in this case, the issue is that Prometric, and the IIMs are playing pass the parcel. The IIMs may say, if probed, that the information is not with them, and is with Prometric. Prometric, not being a government entity, is not covered under the RTI act. This is conjencture on my part, but is a plausible conclusion. I have decided to file an appeal to the appellate authority(as I have nothing to lose), and would like the help of the community members in drafting it. They don't seem to have any specific format for this. I know that other people have filed similar RTIs, but am unable to get their names/contacts for obvious reasons. I would now like to share some online references regarding this matter. * In 2009, when the exam was first conducted online, the then convenor of the CAT Committee had advised the candidates to file an RTI application - Want your CAT score re-evaluated? File RTI - Times Of India * This mentions some general advice, which I've roughly followed : Not Satisfied With CAT Scores - What To Do After CAT? * A directive from the Central Information Commission stating that 'Answer keys must be shared under RTI': Answer keys must be shared under RTI - Times Of India * A news report saying that it is unlikely that the IIMs would reveal information, but also Prometric's willingness to share information in response to RTIs : CAT aspirants' RTI efforts may go waste - Economic Times. * An article mentioning some RTIs filed: 4 RTI appeals filed over CAT scoring - Times Of India * A thread on this forum on a related matter - The awarding of the tender to Prometric : http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/32954-iim-holds-back-information-rti-applicant.html Also, the first appeal can be filed online. Is there any point in mentioning any of the above references, particularly quoting the director of the CAT committee, and the CIC directive? Should I mention the conversation with the Prometric folks? RTI_doc_copy.docx prometric_conv.txt
  3. One of our members wants to gets details of some other persons marks in a university examinations etc.. Though most of his querries have been replied to , but generally I had a doubt that can we ask for any such personal marks details of any other person... So am putting up the questions for general and expertized comments, wherein if possible , in case any member or guest have done any such thing where he got personal marks details of other person exmination..he/she may plz come up with the Method I would also request Member-LINARDNI to keep a watch of this thread Thanx
  4. Students still can’t access their evaluated answer-sheets but they are getting close. The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ordered the Central Board of Secondary Education to give a Delhi student, question-wise marks awarded to her in the Class X science and technology paper in 2005. The CBSE – that has been strongly opposed to showing students their evaluated answer-sheets – had responded in this case that there were no provisions in the examination byelaws of the board to show the answer-script to candidates. An internal appeal moved on behalf of the student, Aditi Gupta, against this response was also turned down; the CBSE took cover under an exemption clause in the Right to Information clause that bars information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship. Incidentally, the CIC had first cited this exemption clause to turn down an RTI request in February. The order had been severely criticised by RTI activists including Magsaysay award-winner Arvind Kejriwal who argued that the commission had misinterpreted this provision. In subsequent cases, the commission, however, agreed to take a relook and refer this issue to a Full Bench of the Commission to take final call. In a brief order this week, Information Commissioner Dr OP Kejariwal kept the request for inspection of the answer-sheet pending in view of the constitution of the Full Bench but ordered CBSE to "disclose the question-wise marks obtained" by Aditi Gupta in the Class X examination 2005 within a fortnight. The commission had earlier ruled in favour of letting students see the answer-keys, the document that guides evaluators on marks to be awarded for various parts of a question. The CBSE has the option of moving the High Court against the CIC decision; the public examination body, Union Public Service Commission had approached the court in October, 2006 to stay operation of a CIC directive on disclosure of cut-off marks and individual marks of candidates who took the Civil Services examination. The court had granted the stay on the UPSC plea that disclosure of this information would undermine the entire examination procedure. (Hindustan Times, New Delhi, Dec.23,2006)
  5. vikasgarg2711

    private scools

    What can i do against a private school if one of my friend has been failed in 11th class though her exams were good. i think there must be partiality in checking the exam coppys ,and she is asked to repeate 11th standard.she has been getting distinction till 10th standard.she has also not been shown her test copys.
  6. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BLOCK IV, OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI 110067 F.No.PBA/06/103 September 22, 2006 Complaint No.113/ICPB/2006 In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19. [Date of Hearing 18.9.2006] Appellant: Dr. (Mrs) Archana S. Gawada Public authority: Employees State Insurance Corporation, New Delhi. Shri C. Sethu Addl. Commissioner & CPIO, Director General, ESIC – Appellate Authority. Present: Shri C. Seth, Addl. Commissioner, ESIC Shri Arvind Kumar, Joint Director. Shri S. Thomas, Addl. Commissioner None from appellant. FACTS: By an application dated 5.5.2006, the complainant had requested for the following information pertaining to recruitment of IMO Gr.ll/Ayurvedic Physician and Dental Surgeon for which written examination was held on 29.06.2003 : Total number of candidates applied for the post of Ayurvedic physician, total number of candidates appeared, called for interview and finally selected; Supply of a copy of the evaluated answer sheets along with relevant question paper in respect of the applicant; Supply of copies of evaluated answer sheets along with question papers relating to the selected candidates. She had also enclosed a draft for Rs.100/- towards the application fee of Rs.10/- and Rs.90/- for the probable cost of providing the information. Her application was forwarded on 17.5.2006 to another CPIO and the appellant was advised to contact that CPIO as he was in charge of the information sought for. By a letter dated 9.6.2006, the CPIO informed the appellant that since she had not furnished her Roll No for the examination, her application could not be located and advised her to send a photo copy of the admit card. He had also returned the draft for Rs 100 requesting her to send Rs.10/-. In response, by a letter dated 19.6.2006, the appellant sent back the DD for Rs 100/ and contended that there was nothing wanting in the application and the public authority should have all records and as such the information sought should be furnished. Since she did not get any response, she filed this Complaint on 11.7.06. Comments were called for from the CPIO. By that time,by a communication dated 2.8.2006, the CPIO furnished the information sought in serial no 1 of the application and declined to furnish the information sought in serial no 2 and 3 applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(j). On receipt of this information,the complainant sent a communication to this Commission dated 21.8.2006, pointing out the inordinate delay in furnishing even the part information and contending thatthe CPIO could not have applied the provisions of Section 8 (1)(j) to furnish the remaining information. She has pointed out that to have transparency in examination matters, evaluated answer sheets should be made available to the candidates. In the comments from the CPIO dated 11.9.2006 and 13/9/2006, the CPIO has stated that in addition to the information furnished on item 1 of the application on 2.8.2006, th eanswer sheet of the complainant had also been furnished to her on 25.8.2006 and that in regard to the answer scripts of the successful candidates, the same could not be furnished in terms of Section 8(1)(j). In respect of the delay, he has submitted that it was due the failure of the complainant in furnishing her Roll No etc. While admitting the delay in furnishing the information and highly regretting for the delay, it is stated that it was on account of this case being the first application received in connection with recruitment process which is normally kept confidential. It is also stated that in collecting and furnishing the information, an expenditure of Rs 167.10 was incurred as against the deposit of Rs. 90/- by the complainant. The complaint was heard on 18.9.2006 with due notice to the complainant and the public authority. Complainant was not present. It was explained by the CPIO that the examination being of objective type, no manual evaluation of the answer sheets is made and the whole exercise is done by the computer which displays only the names of candidates securing marks above the cut off marks. Therefore, since the marking is not done manually, the answer sheet by itself will not display any marks. That is why, the copy of the answer sheet sent to the complaint does not exhibit any marks on the same. It was also submitted that answer sheets of the successful candidates cannot be furnished in terms of Section 8(1)(j). In so far as the delay is concerned, the CPIO expressed his deep regrets stating that since it was the first application under RTI and since, the recruitment process had always been kept confidential, he was not sure whether the information could be furnished or not. He sought for condonation of th edelay assuring the such delays would not occur in future. DECISION: This Commission has taken the view in similar cases of applications for copies of evaluated answer sheets, whether of the applicant himself/herself or that of others, that the same cannot be furnished in terms of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j). In Appeal No ICPB/A-3/CIC/2006, this Commission has decided as follows: “Therefore, we find that in case of evaluated answer papers, the information available with the public authority is in his fiduciary relationship, the disclosure of which is exempt under Section 8(1)(e). In addition, when a candidate seeks for a copy of evaluated answer paper, either of his/her own or others, it is purely a personal information, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public interest or activity, which of such a situation is covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the CPIO was justified in rejecting the request of the appellant for a copy of the evaluated answer paper. We, as a Commission, are not satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought for by the appellant to direct the CPIO to comply with the request of the appellant and as matter of fact we are rather of the opinion that furnishing of copies of evaluated answer papers would be against public interest as has been rightly opined by the appellate authority that supply of a copy of the evaluated answer paper would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection process.” [Case No. ICPB/A-2/CIC/2006 (available in www. cic.gov.in)] Therefore, the CPIO had correctly applied provisions of Section 8(1)(j) to decline to furnish the copies of the answer sheets of the successful candidates. However, this Commission has also decided that as matter of course, marks obtained by the applicant and the selected candidates should be made available to the information seeker. Therefore, as directed during the hearing, the CPIO will furnish to the appellant the cut off marks prescribed, the marks obtained by the complainant and the successful candidates and also a copy of the key. This should be done within 15 days of this Decision. As far as the delay in providing the information is concerned, since the CPIO has explained that the present application was first of its kind seeking for information which had always been kept confidential, I am inclined to condone the delay. However, since delay in furnishing the information has been established, the amount of Rs.90/- deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to her. Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO. -sd- (Padma Balasubramanian) Information Commissioner
  7. hi, can anyone tell me that whether i can ask to my university for my recent exam answersheet to show me?i have given exam of ty bcom in m s university,vadodara,gujarat.If i can ask for my answersheet,is there any time limit within which i have to ask it for? plz reply. thank you very much
  8. I am placing here one refusal of PIO for providing information. I am seeking advise of forum and cases decided by CIC in support of views.
  9. I wanted to have copies of my answer book. Also I want to see the evaluated answer books of my friends. The CPIO has refused to give me the copies even though I had paid the amount. is he justified and can I appraoch CIC for this?
  10. helo, i want to know wether we can have access through the rti act to the question papers of a state level exam conducted by service commission of that very state.can we get it by filing an application under rti to the concerned authority. if not then how can we get the above mentioned information in any other alternate way. so plz tel me about the required procedure. thanx
  11. Student uses RTI to avail marksheet 3 Oct 2007, 0336 hrs IST,TNN PATNA: That the Right to Information (RTI) Act is indeed a powerful weapon in the hands of a commoner has been upheld once again. On September 18, the claim of Anil Kumar to get the copy of marks in theory fetched by his son Kishlay in biology pertaining to the 2006 examinations conducted by National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) for the XII standard was finally conceded. The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ordered NIOS to disclose the marks to Kishlay. CIC information commissioner OP Kejriwal has ordered the regional centre of NIOS in Patna to "disclose" the marks "within 10 days of the receipt" of his order. Initially, the NIOS was being obdurate and kept ducking the demand of Kishlay, when he sought "a copy of publication/disclosure of marks of biology theory" he had fetched in the March-May, 2006, examinations. Earlier, he had appeared in NIOS examinations conducted in October-November, 2005. Since he was not satisfied with the marks he had obtained in the 2005examinations, he had appeared once again in the March-May, 2006, examinations. On January 4, 2007, he wrote to NIOS public information officer (PIO), Patna, seeking a published copy of his marks. He also sought a copy of the "decision of the evaluation director" on his matter. Incidentally, when Kishlay opted to appear for the March-May, 2006, examinations, he was told not to appear in practical papers of biology, as he had already appeared in 2005 itself! The gullible Kislay swallowed the advice, little knowing that marks fetched in theory without taking the examination in practical would be meaningless. Faced with the obdurate stance of NIOS, Kishlay went in appeal before the CIC. Interestingly, during the hearing before Kejriwal, the NIOS maintained that it was supposed to communicate to the candidate only the better of the marks obtained in the two examinations, and, therefore, only the marks obtained in the 2005 examinations could be intimated to him. Yet, when Kishlay insisted on getting the marks obtained in the 2006 examinations, the NIOS argued that marks did not come under the category of information. Finally, Kejariwal noted: "This was not acceptable to the commission. Since the department (NIOS) had these marks in their possession, it was their duty under the RTI Act to disclose it to the appellant (Kishlay)." The RTI Act indeed served its usefulness for a commoner. Student uses RTI to avail marksheet-Patna-Cities-The Times of India
  12. jimmorrison

    Question Papers under RTI?

    Hello All, I need opinion about the practice of not allowing candidates to take the question papers when exam is over. Can this be challenged with RTI? For examples sake the Directorate General of Civil aviation conducts exams to ascertain the competency of flight crew, cabin crew and aircraft maintenance engineers. Should these question papers be made public? -Jim
  13. ganpat1956

    A Landmark Judgement

    The CIC has ruled that any information to which the govt. has an access is to be disclosed, even if the organisation from which such an information emanates is neither funded nor controlled by the government, nor a public body. Here is the full story: New Delhi, Jan 08: Ruling that the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination (CISCE) was under the purview of Right To Information (RTI) Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed it to disclose certain information in response to an RTI application. "...The commission felt that since the information could be accessed by the government, the respondents (CISCE) were obligated to disclose the information sought for by the appellant," said Information Commissioner O P Kejariwal in a recent order. The commission's order came in view of a RTI appeal filed by one Ajay Jhuria, a resident of Mumbai, who sought certified copies of records and action taken against an official by CICSE authorities. The CISCE had earlier rejected Ajay's application on the ground that it did not fell under the purview of the act. Rejecting the contention of CISCE, the commission specified that the information could not excluded. The commission although accepted its contention that it was neither funded nor controlled by government or any other public body, it added that any information to which the government has an access is to be disclosed. Earlier Ajay in his application sought certified copies of record and action taken against one Francis Fanthome by the CISCE. Failing to get a reply from the council, he approached the commission which then directed it to provide the information on the grounds that it was obliged to disclose information as per the act. Zee News - CISCE under obligation to disclose details under RTI Act: CIC
  14. File notings: On January 31, the CIC ruled that as per the existing provisions of RTI Act, a citizen has the right to seek information contained in ‘file notings’ unless the same relates to matters covered under Section 8 of the Act. This section lists national security and such grounds that can exempt a piece of information from disclosure. The CIC didn’t categorise the information contained in file notings and therefore, all types of information could be sought. UPSC case: On November 13, the CIC asked Union Public Service Commission to provide scores to civil service aspirants subject-wise. CIC also recommended that the model answer sheets should also be disclosed from time to time. The commission rejected the UPSC’s contention that the information was secret and revealing it could compromise fairness of the examination system. DISCOM case: The CIC’s decided in December that power companies are "public authorities" and therefore are covered under the purview of the Right to Information Act. As per the CIC order, the power companies are required to appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs) by February 1. They are also required to inform the public by putting up the details of the RTI infrastructure on their websites. For now though, the discoms are "studying the CIC order" and are in no hurry to implement it. Gujarat letters: On the controversial issue of communication between former President KR Naryanan and former Prime Minister AB Vajpayee, the CIC asked the government to provide the communication in a sealed cover to it for examination whether it would be in public interest to disclose information or not. For the first time, the commission sought letters between country’s top executive heads for examination as per the RTI Act. CBSE case: The CIC in December ordered the Central Board of Secondary Education to give a Delhi student question-wise marks awarded to her in the Class X science and technology paper in 2005. CBSE had objected saying there were no provisions in the examination by-laws of the board to show the answer-script to candidates. Officials Secrets Act has no meaning now: The babus labelling file as ‘confidential’ could not be an excuse for denying information sought under the Right to Information Act. CIC Wajahat Habibullah observed that withholding the information either on the ground that the information is classified as "confidential" under Officials Secrets Act or under section 8 (2) of RTI would be wrong interpretation of the law. He said the public authority could withhold the information that comes under the ambit of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. He further added that the public authority could label any information as "confidential" per section 8 (1) and not the Official Secrets Act - the normal practices in government offices. Thus, the information labelled as "confidential" under the Officials Secrets Act, 1923 would not stand under the new observation. First hearing using video-conferencing: In May, the CIC for the first time conducted hearing through video-conferencing in a case where penalty provisions were to be invoked on an official based in Raipur. The official through video-conferencing presented his case before the commission.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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