VISITORS

Friday, 7 December 2012

KERALA HIGH COURT DIRECTS UPSC TO ALLOW INSPECTION OF ANSWERSHEETS OF CIVIL SERVICES EXAM.


  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/

5 comments:

  1. This judgment has been stayed by SC in SLP No 33761 on 23/11/12.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ya, 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Please let us know the update about SLP.

    ReplyDelete