Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta Vs CPIO, University of Delhi (Central Information Commission)
Central Information Commission instructs University of Delhi to allow inspection of his own answer sheet to the Appellant Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta as sought in the RTI application within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
FULL TEXT OF THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding Gender Champions nominated or appointed by the University of Delhi in compliance of letter dated 03.08.2016 sent by Secretary, UGC to Vice Chancellor, Delhi University and UGC (Promotion in Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012, , answer scripts for his Semester IV Examinations of L.L.B, name of the Ombudsman appointed or nominated by JNU in accordance with the UGC (Grievance Redressal Regulations, 2012) and issues related thereto.
The Section Officer, vide its letter dated 01.09.2016 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 29.05.20 17 while upholding the reply of the CPIO stated that the Appellant could obtain his evaluated answer script by contacting the Asst. Controller of Examination in case it was available as per the record retention schedule on payment of requisite fees.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta alongwith Ms. Shashi (Adv.) and Mr. Narvinder Thakran;
Respondent: Mrs. Meenakshi Sahay, Dy. Registrar /CPIO; Mr. Yogesh, Jr. Assistant; and Mr. Hem Chand Pandey, AR(Exam);
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information had not been received by him. He contested the response of the CPIO/FAA and questioned the manner in which the replies had been furnished avoiding the relevant issues raised by him. He specifically highlighted the provision 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and on issue no. 05 objected to the decision of the CPIO to emphasize on the procedure involved in providing photocopy of the evaluated answer sheet to the students. It was categorically stated that he was aware of the matter pending adjudication before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICSI Vs. Paras Jain; SLP (C) No. 12692/2014 with regard to the fee imposed for seeking a copy of the evaluated answer sheets. Nonetheless, he made a fine distinction between inspection and receiving a certified copy of his evaluated answer sheet. While the former was stated to be his fundamental right in the light of CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. SLP(C) No. 7526/2009 and that he should have been permitted to inspect his answer sheet, he agreed to await the decision of the Court in the latter case. In its response the Respondent referred to the decisions of the CIC in several similar matters as stated below:-
