IN THE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/17TH JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No.
37734 of 2010 (N)
---------------------------
PETITIONER :
---------------------
T.R.RAJESH,
31/346,
SOUPARNIKA, PARADISE ROAD
VYTTILA
P.O., KOCHI, PIN-682 019.
BY
ADVS.SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
SRI.G.ARUN GOPAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. JOINT
DIRECTORS AND CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
UNION
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DHOLPUR HOUSE,
SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 069.
2. THE
APPELLATE AUTHORITY JOINT SECRETARY (EXAMINATIONS),
UNION
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DHOLPUR HOUSE,
SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 069.
3. THE
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION,
AUGUST
KRANTI BHAVAN, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE
NEW
DELHI-110 066.
BY ADV.
SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 07-06-2012,
THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 37734 of 2010 (N)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1 : COPY OF
THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 12.5.2010.
EXT.P2 : COPY OF
THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
14/6/2010.
EXT.P3 : COPY OF
THE FIRST APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ON 5/7/2010.
EXT.P4 : COPY OF
THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTED THE
1ST
APPEAL DATED 20/8/2010.
EXT.P5 : COPY OF
THE SECOND APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 26/9/2010.
EXT.P6 COPY OF
THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 6/10/2010.
EXT.P7 COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED
4.11.2010.
EXT.P8 COPY OF
THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6/10/2010.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.R1(a) : COPY OF APPEAL
UNDER RTI ACT 2005.
EXT.R1(b) COPY OF
THE DECISION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 37734 of 2010
------------------------------------
DATED
THIS THE 7th DAY OF JUNE, 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner
was a candidate who appeared with Roll No.092645 in
the Civil Service Main examination held by the Union Public
Service
Commission in 2009.
2. This writ
petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the orders
by which the information sought in respect of three items
were denied and
the appeal was also rejected. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted
that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in
Central Board of
Secondary Education v. Adiya Bandopadhyay (2011 (3) KLT SN
117 (C.
No.120) SC) there cannot be any objection in allowing an
opportunity to
the petitioner to verify the valued answer sheets in respect
of the written
examination undertaken by the petitioner in different
papers.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
respondents who
submitted that actually the petitioner had demanded
information regarding
three matters: (a) marklist; (b) details of the valuers; and
(c) information
regarding evaluated answer book. It is submitted that the
objection stated
by the respondents are really valid in the light of the
provisions of the Act.
W.P.(C).No.37734/2010
-2-
4. In Adiya
Bandopadhyay's case (supra) the Apex Court, while
considering the definition of 'information', held as
follows:
"The
definition of 'information' in S.2(f) of the R.T.I. Act refers
to any
material in any form which includes records, documents,
opinions,
papers among several other enumerated items. The
term
'record' is defined in S.2(i) of the said Act as including any
document,
manuscript or file among others. When a candidate
participates in an examination and writes his answers in an
answer-book and submits it to the examining body for
evaluation
and declaration of the result, the answer-book is a
document
or record. When the answer-book is evaluated by an
examiner
appointed by the examining body, the evaluated
answer-book becomes a record containing the 'opinion' of the
examiner. Therefore, the
evaluated answer-book is also an
'information' under the R.T.I. Act."
Going by the above decision, once the answer book is
evaluated by an
examiner, it becomes a record containing his opinion and
consequently it
will be an information under the Act.
5. In that view
of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in
that respect and the writ petition is allowed to that
extent. There will be a
direction to the competent authority of the Union Public Service
Commission to provide facility to the petitioner to verify
the valued answer
W.P.(C).No.37734/2010
-3-
papers and appropriate communication will be issued in this
regard to the
petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of
this judgment. The petitioner will be informed about the
venue as well as
the time of inspection sufficiently in advance. No costs.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE
kav/
This judgment has been stayed by SC in SLP No 33761 on 23/11/12.
ReplyDeleteya, we are aware of it. this is good opportunity for those who want to approach supreme court in matter of answersheet under rti. they can directly file intervention application in this matter.anyway this slp is going to be dissmissed.
ReplyDeletePlease let us know the update about SLP.
ReplyDeleteHow can I self study and prepare myself for upsc civil services indian polity exam book
ReplyDeleteIs there any best tnpsc study center in chennai for tnpsc group 1 examination
ReplyDelete