2018 (10) TMI 1749 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking of information - stand taken by the petitioner, the MPSC before the Commission is that there has been no denial of the information sought for by the respondent No.2 and all the applications and the appeal have been considered and decided by it - whether the respondent No.2 is entitled to seek certified copies of the evaluated answer sheets/ scripts of the said selected candidates? HELD THAT - The evaluated answer book is information within the meaning of information as defined in Section 2(i) of the RTI Act which refers to any material in any form which includes records, documents, opinions etc. When a candidate participates in an examination and writes his answer in an answer book and submits to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer book is a document or record. Such evaluated answer book is not being held by the examining body in its fiduciary relationship with reference to the examinee who participates in the examination and whose answer books are evaluated by the examining body. The examining body may simply subject the candidate to a process of verification by an examination, to find out whether such person is suitable for a particular post, job or assignment. An examining body, if it is a public authority entrusted with public functions, is required to act fairly, reasonably, uniformly and consistently for public good and in public interest. Therefore, every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer books, by either inspecting them or take certified thereof, unless the evaluated answer books are found to be exempted under Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act. Coming to the present case, an examination was conducted by the MPSC for appointment to various posts in the State of Manipur. There was an allegation against the MPSC for having committed many irregularities in the recruitment process. The matter was brought to this court by way of writ petitions and in one of the writ petitions, this court constituted a Committee to look into the matter and submit a report thereof. As per the report, there were many prima facie irregularities as regards the non-signing of the answer seats by the examiner and supervisor, erroneous in the tabulation, mistakes in the totaling of marks, change of marks without signature etc. In this backdrop, the issue involved herein is required to be examined by this court - It is well settled that the evaluated answer book is not being held by the examining body in its fiduciary relationship and therefore, the examinee is entitled to have access to the information or for that matter, he can take certified copies of it. Petition dismissed with the direction that the MPSC shall pay a sum of ₹ 5000/- only as costs to be paid to the High Court Bar Association of Manipur and comply with the directions contained in the decision of the Commission within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent No.2 is entitled to seek certified copies of the evaluated answer sheets/scripts of the selected candidates.
2. Whether the Commission failed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the 82 recommended candidates as mandated under Section 19(4) of the RTI Act.
3. Whether the evaluated answer sheets fall under the category of third-party information.
4. Whether the evaluated answer sheets are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Certified Copies of Evaluated Answer Sheets:
The court examined the decision in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, where it was held that evaluated answer books are "information" under the RTI Act and every examinee has the right to access their evaluated answer books either by inspecting them or taking certified copies. The court noted that the evaluated answer books do not fall under the exemption of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, which pertains to information held in a fiduciary relationship. The court concluded that the evaluated answer sheets are public documents and do not belong to the candidates, and thus, the respondent No.2 is entitled to access them.

2. Opportunity of Being Heard to 82 Recommended Candidates:
The petitioner argued that the Commission failed to give an opportunity of being heard to the 82 recommended candidates, which is mandatory under Section 19(4) of the RTI Act. The court acknowledged this procedural lapse but emphasized that the larger public interest in disclosure outweighs the need for protection of personal information, as per Section 8(2) of the RTI Act. The court noted that the Commission had concluded that public interest justified the disclosure of the information.

3. Evaluated Answer Sheets as Third-Party Information:
The court addressed whether the evaluated answer sheets should be treated as third-party information. It was argued that for Section 11(1) of the RTI Act to apply, the information must be treated as confidential by the third party, which was not the case here. The court stated that the evaluated answer sheets are public documents and are not confidential. Therefore, the evaluated answer sheets do not qualify as third-party information under the RTI Act.

4. Exemption from Disclosure under Section 8(1)(e):
The court reiterated that the evaluated answer sheets do not fall under the exemption of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, which pertains to information held in a fiduciary relationship. The court referenced the CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay case, where it was held that the examining bodies do not hold evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship with the examinees. Consequently, the evaluated answer sheets are not exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the MPSC to comply with the Commission's decision to provide certified copies of the evaluated answer sheets to respondent No.2 within fifteen days. Additionally, the MPSC was ordered to pay a sum of ?5000 as costs to the High Court Bar Association of Manipur. The court emphasized that the larger public interest in disclosure outweighed any potential harm to the interests of the candidates.