Jump to content

Should Universities and Boards disclose evaluated answer scripts  

379 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Universities and Boards disclose evaluated answer scripts

    • Not disclose to anyone
      15
    • Only disclose to the student
      191
    • Disclose to everyone
      173


Recommended Posts

smbhappy
No. RTI is not for questioning actions of Authority but to get INFORMATION only which is present in records ......

 

I fully concur with Dr. Malhotra

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • RAVEENA_O

    13

  • sharmajee

    12

  • smbhappy

    11

  • Yogi M. P. Singh

    10

horizonrays
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011

[Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009]

Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. … Appellants

Vs.

Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. … Respondents

 

 

Full judgement at:

http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/helddis3.aspx

 

Cases covered:

 

CA No. 6456 of 2011 [@ SLP © No.9755 of 2009 - WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SEC.EDUN.& ORS Vs. CHIEF INFOR.COMMR.W.B.INFORMN.COMMN.&ORS ]

 

 

CA Nos.6457-6458 of 2011 (@ SLP © Nos.11162-11163 of 2009: W.BENGAL BOARD OF SEC.EDUCATION & ORS. XVI Vs. STATE CHIEF INF.COMMR. WEST BENGAL&ORS. )

 

CA No.6461 of 2011 (@ SLP © No.11670 of 2009- UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA & ORS. Vs. PRITAM ROOJ & ANR.

 

CA Nos.6462 of 2011 (@ SLP © No.13673 of 2009: WEST BENGAL COUNL.OF HIG.SEC.EDU.& ANR. Vs. PRITAM ROOJ & ORS)

 

CA Nos.6464 of 2011 (@ SLP © No.17409 of 2009: CHAIRMAN,W.B. CENT.SCHOOL SERV.COMMN Vs. PRITAM ROOJ & ORS.

 

 

CA Nos. 6459 of 2011 (@ SLP © No.9776 of 2010 : INST.OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA )

 

CA Nos.6465-6468 of 2011 (@ SLP © Nos.30858-30861 of 2009: ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. Vs. HAMEN BHARALI & ORS)

 

 

Source:

http://causelists.nic.in/scnew/otues/sl.html

 

Thus it covers exams conducted by CBSE, STATE BOARDS, UNIVERSITIES, PROFESSIONAL BODIES, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONS. It is doubtful if it can be applied to departmental promotion exams, though ratio can be reasonably extended to such exams/tests.

 

 

links is not working .

Link to post
Share on other sites
horizonrays
No. RTI is not for questioning actions of Authority but to get INFORMATION only which is present in records .

After having seen your answer-sheets , you may decide whether marking has been fair or not and if need be , you may apply for re-evaluation , or even go to the court .

If you think failure on account of being fail 4 out of 5 subjects , is illegal then you can apply for copy of Rules from Education board or university as the case may be and then find if the action is proper or not . Then you can challenge the order in court if it is illegal .

 

respected sir , those student who sent to supereme court were sure and resolved that what they got where not correct and should be getting more .

 

i applied for re evaluation they told me , university does not do re evaluation . so i filed rti application .

 

here is the answer what applet authority told me ,

 

1> you will not have answer sheet nor will we allow to examine it .

2> we cannot provide you with model answer

3> we cannot give you evaluation rule .

 

within 30 days you will get denial letter from us . 8 more days to go .

 

i know i can get the answer sheet filing the wright against university , but i need proper answer on what ground i was failed . no the answer sheet what will i do with it when it cannot be re evaluated ?

 

I simply want to get what deserve , proper marks for my exams . that's all i want ,

so sir , i humbly request you guide me what should I do ? should i file a writ again university in court asking for the reevaluation and the ground on which they gave me 24 marks ?

 

add to this , mass students were failed , and it was covered in national news paper Hindustan and Hindustan times , despite that fact university said it's student's mistake that's why they failed .

 

so guide me .

Link to post
Share on other sites
dr.s.malhotra
I may correct you that Supreme Court has not allowed the student (or any other examinee) to have their answer-sheets. Supreme Court has only allowed the inspection of the Answer-sheets..

Dear Bhanot Sahib ,

I feel the preliminary objection to direct Complaint in the referred case is the cause for this decision . The Order of Sh. RI Singh is not a speaking Order whether he has allowed certified copies of Answer-sheets or Inspection of answer-sheets . He has used the word "ACCESS" which could mean anyone of the two or both . The PIO has shown a sort of so called "benevolency" by offering Inspection despite having raised effective preliminary objection [ in view of decision in CC461/2011 Kehar Singh ] . Sh. Singh RI just let it go the way of Complainant in fresh case , a la CIC approach where the Central Information Commission has been resorting to this method of allowing inspection in cases where it feels that Appellant has faced harassment but they find hard to nail PIO . So acceptable , since the preliminary objection could have washed off the case altogether .

 

Now I do not think SC Judgment on answer-sheets allows only Inspection of answer-sheets . The logic is simple : Under RTI Act only those records can be disclosed which conform to provisions of the Act . So any record which conforms to Inspection , will be open to be supplied to the Applicant in material form too . Any Information which can not be supplied in material form , can not be allowed to be inspected too - and vice versa .

ACCESS : can be inspection or supply of Information in material form or both as ar as RTI is concerned .

Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

Dear Dr. Malhotra - CIC has referred to the submission of the PIO in which he has offered inspection (see Box below); CIC used a broader term than mere inspection. He told me to come back to the commission in case of any problem. This also he covered in the concluding lines of his order - "It is made clear that in case the information-seeker has any grievenace regarding non-compliance of this order, he is free to move the Commission."

 

3. However, in the written reply, the respondent states that the applicant can be permitted to inspect his own answer-sheets under the Act ibid. In view of this admission of the respondent and the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upholding the Double Bench decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court pertaining to access to answer-sheets under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the present complainant is relegated to the PIO with the directions that access to his own answer sheets shall be allowed to the information-seeker within three weeks.

 

Regarding Copies of the record, I had made a plea that the same may be allowed under Section 2(j)(ii), to which commission said that you request the same to PIO and if he refuses come back to the commission. I think it is a wise thing on his part. The battle lines are drawn and I will accompany the applicant complainant tto the PIO of the High Court. Lets see what happens. I have option to come back to commission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dr.s.malhotra

I believe you are likely to get the copies at inspection since you have already requested the same . At the most he may ask for additional fee , which again can be contested with SIC . I think this Order favors you in the end . You have taken good approach .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

smb, this line is a routine and it is written in every order of CIC and it is nothing special in this order. In my matter, IC- Mrs. AD gave same this chit also.

 

CIC used a broader term than mere inspection. He told me to come back to the commission in case of any problem. This also he covered in the concluding lines of his order.It is made clear that in case the information-seeker has any grievenace regarding non-compliance of this order, he is free to move the Commission
Link to post
Share on other sites
smbhappy

CIC looked very confident as he meant the business and he was staring at the PIO as if he wanted to convey him his mood, while dictating the order. I am sure that if I happen to go back to him he will give relief.

 

@Raveena - The 28th Paragraph of the SC judgement is another ace up in sleeve. It will be very difficult, rather impossible, for the PIO to deny the copies of the evaluated answer-sheets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
karira

An opinion by M J Antony in business-standard.com on 23 August 2011:

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/m-j-antony-excesssunlight/446763/

 

M J Antony: Excess of sunlight

 

Ardent admirers of the Supreme Court will credit it with starting three revolutions in the past three decades. In the 1980s the public interest litigation (PIL) movement opened the doors of the court to every citizen, especially those who could not reach it due to poverty, illiteracy or backwardness.

 

Around the same time, the court sowed the seeds of citizens’ right to know in a few judgments, asserting that sunlight is the best disinfectant. This led to the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

 

The third wave, the creation of an anti-corruption mechanism, also germinated in the court room, when the hawala cases, the 2G scam and other mega swindles led to momentous orders.

Like all revolutions, they have a tendency to overshoot themselves and lead to unintended results. PIL has grown into a wild bush and the courts are now trimming its branches and punishing interlopers and frivolous petitioners. Last week, the Supreme Court found that the right to information was also going too far. In a judgment, Central Board vs Aditya, the court stated that “this cherished right is intended to be a formidable tool in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability.”

 

However, it warned that indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty.

 

“The nation does not want a scenario where 75 per cent of the staff of public authorities spends 75 per cent of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising ‘information furnishing’, at the cost of their normal and regular duties,” the court said

 

Last year, the court dismissed an appeal in which a litigant who lost his property suit in all courts below wanted information as to why and for what reasons the judges had come to their decision against him. “A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion,” the judgment in Khanapuram vs Admn Officer said.

 

Some high courts also receive petitions that seek irrelevant information or to settle scores against public officials. One case was decided by the Delhi High Court recently in which the judgment opened with a lament on the “maladroit manner in which a beneficial legislation and judge-made law” was used to mortify a deputy commissioner of the municipal corporation. In this case, Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation vs Union of India, a non-government organisation sought information on the official’s alleged sexual disorders, DNA test, hospital records on alleged piles and sterilisation surgery. This was only half of its litany of demands.

 

The high court dismissed its application with costs, which will go to the benefit of the Blind Relief Association. The judgment stated that the petition was “beyond the perception of decency and in fact invasion of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is a reflection of extreme vengeance proclivity and is in bad taste and definitely would not come within the realm of the RTI Act.”

 

The Supreme Court judgment last week dealt with the right of examinees to access their evaluated answer-sheets. The court held that students have a right to see their answer sheets because it is “information”. It is not in the protected category listed in the Act. The Calcutta High Court had also taken the same view before in this appeal case.

 

However, the Jharkhand High Court has a different take on this. In its recent judgment, Jharkhand PSC vs State of Jharkhand, it ruled that it was dangerous to disclose evaluated answer-sheets. The information will reveal the names of the examiners, supervisors and others associated with the process of the examination. It will “endanger the life and physical safety of such persons.”

 

The Chhattisgarh High Court also upheld the decision of the information officer not to supply answer sheets of police constables participating in departmental promotion. The high court stated that the disclosure would be harmful to the competitive position of other candidates. The Patna High Court in another recent case stated that the names of members of the interview board to recruit police lab assistants could be disclosed, but their photographs or residential addresses should not be disclosed. The high court judges seem to know the ground situation in their territory better than the Supreme Court brethren, who have their heads apparently in the clouds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
karira

As reported by Pankaj Sarma in telegraphindia.com on 26 August 2011:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110826/jsp/northeast/story_14424735.jsp

 

SC grants right to see answerscripts

 

Guwahati, Aug. 25: The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) will have to show evaluated answerscripts to examinees if they apply for it under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

 

An official source in the APSC said the commission was left with no other option as the apex court has upheld a 2009 Gauhati High Court order directing it to allow inspection of answerscripts by candidates.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that the evaluated answersheets are covered under the definition of the “information” under the RTI Act.

 

The public service commission, which has been mired in controversy over alleged anomalies and manipulation during evaluation of answerscripts, had tried everything to prevent the order but nothing worked in its favour.

 

The APSC had expressed fears that this would open a floodgate of demands from dissatisfied candidates and allowing the inspection of evaluated answerscripts would lead to the collapse of the entire system.

 

The commission is of the view that if it was required to allow inspection of answerscripts or provide certified copies, it would interfere with its effective and efficient functioning, and would require additional staff and infrastructure.

 

According to a source, the Supreme Court passed the order on August 9, upholding the high court verdict directing the APSC to permit examinees to inspect their answersheets.

 

Gauhati High Court had passed the order on November 6, 2009, directing the APSC to furnish photocopies of answerscripts, ruling in favour of six candidates who had failed to clear the test.

 

The examinees had moved the court seeking a directive to the commission which had denied them photocopies of the answerscripts they had sought under the RTI Act.

 

The six had applied for answerscripts of the papers in which they were shown to have secured very low marks — which they felt was the result of manipulation and foul play by the APSC during evaluation.

 

The petitioners had appeared in the Combined Competitive Examination, 2006, held by the APSC for recruitment to vacant posts in the Assam Civil Service, Class-I (junior grade) and allied services.

 

They had first approached the State Information Commission, Assam, which passed an order on July 3, 2009, asking the APSC to provide them with photocopies of the answerscripts.

 

The then State Information Commissioner, B.K. Gohain, had also laid down that the order would be applicable to all such cases where public examinations are conducted by the APSC or any other authority for selection of candidates for any posts and also in the case of the High School Leaving Certificate, the Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate (HSSLC) and university examinations.

 

The candidates were forced to move the high court when the APSC refused to abide by the State Information Commission order.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
karira

An article by Kavita A Sharma in hindustantimes.com on 28 August 2011:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Not-off-the-mark/Article1-738992.aspx

 

Not off the mark

 

The Supreme Court rendered a landmark judgement on August 9 when it held that evaluated answer sheets are covered under the Right to Information Act and that this judgement would apply to all examinations including ones conducted by the public service commissions, universities, boards and also professional bodies.

 

The judgement takes me back to the 1990s when the Parents' Forum for Meaningful Education (PFME) filed an application on behalf of a student in the District Consumer Forum of Haryana. The student wanted to access his answer scripts of his chemistry paper and then redressal of any grievance in case of an error. His board results showed that he had failed in the subject. The consumer forum ordered that the answer scripts be shown to him. Eight continuation sheets were found missing but nothing could be done as the board chose to go into appeal to the State Consumer Forum where PFME lost. This was because of an earlier order of the National Consumer Forum said an examinee was not a consumer and an examining body was an institution providing 'service' for a consideration.

 

We could not approach the high court because of a Supreme Court judgement in which it held that the process of evaluation of answer papers or of subsequent verification of marks under Clause 3 of Regulation 104 of the Maharashtra State Board did not attract the principles of natural justice.

 

In the August 9 judgement, the court, on the other hand, took the view that when an examinee is permitted to examine his answer sheet, the examining body is not giving him any new information but an opportunity to read what he had written earlier. Therefore, in furnishing the answer-book, there was no breach of confidentiality, privacy, secrecy or trust.

 

Of course, there was a genuine fear that the safety of the examiner would be endangered if his identity was revealed. So the court accepted the validity of this argument and exempted from disclosure not only the identity of the examiner but also of the scrutiniser, co-ordinator and head examiner. Further the court allayed the apprehensions of the examining bodies that they might have to store the corrected answer scripts running into lakhs for long periods and this could lead to infrastructural and administrative problems. It was clarified that “the right to access information” will have a certain time limit. In this case, what the RTI has achieved is something for which there was no mechanism earlier as the consumer court also did not see the statutory examining bodies as ‘service providers’ for a consideration.

 

Having taken this step, it is logical that the examining bodies should set up a grievance redressal mechanism even if it is at a small fee to cover the administrative costs. The fear that the examining body would be flooded with applications for access to corrected answer scripts may not be well founded as examinees too want a finality of results so as to move on with their career goals.

 

Kavita A Sharma is former principal, Hindu College, University of Delhi. The views expressed by the author

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

The action of PFME is applauded, in fact it takes time to reach to a stage where the aspirations of a innovatory gets the satisfaction of victory. Well done, Mrs Sharma, if not in 1990 through CPA, let it be by Orders of SC, your target achieved, congrats.

 

pcbali salutes such pioneering, courageous, daring and bold complainants who think something special which other think as impossible. What occur to these petitoners, that becomes a landmark

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...

As reported by Bosco Dominique in Times Of India on 18th Feb 2012

Answer keys must be shared under RTI

 

The Central Information Commission has directed Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research in Puducherry to provide the question paper along with answer key of an entrance exam conducted by it for admission. The landmark order that came on an RTI petition could bring greater transparency to the high-stress entrance test system.

 

Access to papers and answer keys would help aspirants, both current and future, understand what and why they were getting wrong and help prepare for such tests better.

 

The order will apply to all entrance exams in India. The RTI application was filed by Puducherry Government Medical Officers' Association general secretary Dr K Sudhakar.

 

Puducherry Government Medical Officers' Association general secretary Dr K Sudhakar filed an RTI application with the JIPMER public information officer (PIO), seeking a copy of the question paper along with answer key of the entrance examination held in July 2011 for admission into MCh in urology. PIO James Sekar denied the information on the ground that it was not the practice of the institute to share question papers of entrance tests. Sudhakar then approached the first appellate authority, which declared that it was "satisfied with the PIO's reply." Undeterred, Sudhakar moved the CIC. Central information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, after hearing the case through videoconference, ordered the PIO to furnish a copy of the question paper with answer key by February 10. Gandhi, in his January 23 order, pointed out that the right to information is a fundamental right.

 

When the PIO said there was a possibility that the information sought may have been destroyed, the commissioner warned that destruction of information sought under the RTI Act will have "serious repercussions".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Yogi M. P. Singh

Hon'ble members. In view of your friend, answer sheets (copies) of the students should be disclosed to concern as well as third party. In these days, there is steep deteriration of moral ethical values. Partiality in evaluating answersheets and carelessness and greed on the part of teachers is causing great concern to common man. On number occasions highcourts reprimanded concern for checking the copies of students wrongly. Every one knows well, how the Proffessors and responsible authorities indulged in irregularity when M.G.K.V. University was conducting Jharkhand P.C.S. examination. Vigilence team of state of Jharkhand was in varanasi to arrest the fugitive proffessors charged with embezzlement and bribe who absconded. Marks awarded to answersheets of students by evaluators decide destiny and future prospect of students and this is foremost duty of our lawmakers, quasi-judicial bodies and judicial bodies, not to allow any one to play game by not allowing disclosure of evaluated answersheets of students. Students are future of country and they should not be deprived of their rights granted to them by parliament of the country which is supreme lawmaking body.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
satishtalnikar

We, the Indians have a tradition of having a casual approach to any sensitive issue. While the ban was imposed for showing the answer book to the aggrieved student, no thought has been given to the one important aspect that with such a ban the fate of the students would be at the mercy of the evaluators and moderators who would be free to evaluate answer book at their whims and fancy. I think there is no harm in showing the answer book to the aggrieved student. At least this will bring to the fore casual and callous approach of the evaluator or the moderator. Of course, we must respect the final verdict of the court on this issue. Thanks for Raveena for bringing this sensitive issue to the fore...

Link to post
Share on other sites
sharmajee

[h=2]Candidates can inspect RJS prelim answersheets: HC[/h]

Jaipur: The high court on Wednesday permitted a couple of petitioners to inspect their answersheets of RJS preliminary examination held in December 2011. The court, however, rejected the plea to provide certified copies of the same.

The petition was filed by unsuccessful candidates including one Bhawana and others, seeking a direction to RPSC to provide certified copies of their answersheets. “It was told to the court that no such rule exists where the certified copies can be provided. However, the court has permitted to show the answersheets to which we have no objection,” said SN Kumawat, counsel for RPSC and additional advocate general.

However, in another petition filed by one Arun Kumar Agarwal, the bench imposed a cost of Rs 500 for filing a frivolous petition based on wrong facts. “The petitioner was an unsuccessful candidate of RJS-Pre examination and under two different RTI he obtained information as to whether scaling was applied by RPSC in the said exam and what was the scaling formula,” said Kumawat.

 

Article Window

Link to post
Share on other sites

By this facilities for showing the Answer sheet student would be more serious before blaming the system of exam and credibility of the system shall be enhanced in future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Super Moderator
RAVEENA_O

Universities in Maharashtra discloses the answer sheet on making application within stipulated time after declaration of results, by paying prescribed fee. There is no need to invoke RTI provisions. In fact, UGC or the Governing Councils like MCI, AICTE etc should issue instructions to their associate institutions / colleges to make a mandatory provision to disclose Answer Sheets in same manner. Reluctance to disclose the evaluated answer sheets only indicate discrepancy in the system itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
sharmajee

Here is the judgment..

 

Candidates can inspect RJS prelim answersheets: HC

 

 

Jaipur: The high court on Wednesday permitted a couple of petitioners to inspect their answersheets of RJS preliminary examination held in December 2011. The court, however, rejected the plea to provide certified copies of the same.

The petition was filed by unsuccessful candidates including one Bhawana and others, seeking a direction to RPSC to provide certified copies of their answersheets. “It was told to the court that no such rule exists where the certified copies can be provided. However, the court has permitted to show the answersheets to which we have no objection,” said SN Kumawat, counsel for RPSC and additional advocate general.

However, in another petition filed by one Arun Kumar Agarwal, the bench imposed a cost of Rs 500 for filing a frivolous petition based on wrong facts. “The petitioner was an unsuccessful candidate of RJS-Pre examination and under two different RTI he obtained information as to whether scaling was applied by RPSC in the said exam and what was the scaling formula,” said Kumawat.

 

Article Window

http___rhccasestatus.raj.nic.in_smsrhcb_rhbcis_judfile.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

RTI reveals big mistake on the part of evaluator, right answer marked as wrong. But President rajasthan board of secondary education says, as per rules, even if there is a mistake, as per their rules marks once given cannot be changed. They can only debar the evaluator......

 

Clipping of Rajasthan Patrika - Jaipur, 11-08-2012 :DigitalEdition

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
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love RTI INDIA- Online RTI? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    • YK jain
    • Sundeep Nigam
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      119,508
    • Total Posts
      427,270
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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