The Commission held that the RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability and to establish the practical regime of right to information. Competitive examinations conducted by various Constitutional / Statutory / government departments, for recruitment to public services, are not exempt from its purview.  The entire gambit of selection process to government services, including the evaluated answer books of examinees, falls well within the pale of public gaze and therefore could be accessed under the RTI Act. The citizens have the right to know every public act and for that matter everything done in a public way by public functionaries.

The judgment will have far-reaching implication and will help to bring total transparency in the much maligned system of public recruitment.

Speaking for the five members Full Bench of the Commission, Mr. R.I. Singh, Chief Information Commissioner observed,” Post declaration of the result, any disclosure will only lend transparency to the competition and thereby reaffirm faith in the fairness of the system, by placing the entire process in public domain. After all, a competition is nothing but an equal opportunity to prove unequal talent. Let, therefore, both - the equality of opportunity and inequality of talent - be visible and felt; this would happen only if the entire process is transparent, for anyone and everyone to see. Discloser, therefore, would be in the larger public interest.”

The issue was raised before the State Information Commission by  Shri Surinder Kumar s/o Shri Ram Chand, an ex-servicemen, who had appeared in the competitive examination conducted for appointment to the post of Inspector, Excise and Taxation, Government of Punjab, on 23.11.2008.

Dissatisfied with the result of the examination, he had approached the PIO of the department of Excise and Taxation under the RTI to obtain copies of individual answer sheets of the nine selected ex-servicemen candidates.

However, the PIO declined his request on the grounds that answer-books are exempt from discloser under Section 8 of the RTI Ac. It was argued that an answer scripts is personal information of candidate; it is an expression of his individual personality. Every citizen has a right to privacy. To allow answer sheets to be accessed by others would pierce privacy and violate the person of the candidate, apart from opening a Pandora’s Box, which would not serve any public purpose. Besides, discloser, it was pleaded would be prohibited under a fiduciary relationship which exists between the examiner and examinees.

Rejecting the argument that an answer sheet would violate the privacy of individual candidates, the Commission observed that “An answer sheet is not a private parchment supplied by a third party. It is a public paper in the custody of a public authority. The answer sheets or the marks obtained by candidates are not their private possessions, but sacrosanct record impacting public life and also the fate and future of the competitors. Nothing in the administrative realm is personal or private - those who choose to enter public affairs, must learn to live by public scrutiny.”

The Commission observed that discloser would not be an unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual candidate, but any denial of information would certainly amount to unwarranted infringement of equality of opportunity, as enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

The respondent, in denying access to the petitioner to his answer sheets, had based reliance on an earlier decision of the full bench of the Central Information commission, which had disallowed discloser of answer sheets of examinations conducted by UPSC and Staff Selection Board of government of India. Disagreeing with the decision of the Central Commission, the State Commission observed that,

“The Central Commission, in our humble view, has not gone by the law, but by a perceived un-workability of the statutorily mandated rights. Expediency could never be a ground to keep the rights of citizens in suspended animation. Once the Central Commission had come to the conclusion that answer sheets are ‘information’ and that these do not fall within the exemption clauses of Section 8 (1) of the Act ibid, the only inescapable and legally sustainable conclusion would have been to allow access to the answer sheets, no matter who conducts an examination and for what purpose.”

The State Commission also rejected the argument that any large scale discloser would introduce an element of uncertainty and make the system unworkable. The State Commission held, “Right to seek discloser of an evaluated answer sheet under the RTI law does not extend to a right to seek re-evaluation of answer sheets. The law only requires discloser. What happens thereafter - whether answer sheets should be open to re-evaluation or not, would entirely depend upon the policy / rules / regulations of the concerned Institution.  Discloser, in fact, would lend stability to competitive examinations and may even reduce avoidable litigation, which at present, invariably tails all declaration of results, as an integral adjunct to public recruitment.

“Rather than any possible harm or injury, discloser would do only well.  It would stir up the examiners, make the assessment fairer and free from lapses or whimsical marking.”

Taking judicial note of the news reports appearing in the local news papers regarding  various scams in recruitment to  public service, the Commission observed that, “ Scams, it seems, know no boundaries, of states or departments / institutions. The sweep of scams colours in red the entire canvas of North- West India, tainting all most all spheres of public recruitment pertaining to government departments, Universities, competitive entrance examinations for Institutions of higher learning, constitutional Institutions like Public Service Commissions and  even the exalted Judiciary.” The Commission quoted 9 instances of irregularities reported in the Press in the last few months, covering UT Chandigarh, Punjab, Haryana and some Universities and observed,

“Where does then the public interest lie – in opening the system to public gaze or in keeping it rapped under the veil of vested interests? What has made the system un-workable, - the culture of secrecy or transparency?

When the disease is deep rooted, not the sugar coated palatable pills, but incisive surgery is the remedy. Deeper the malady, deeper would be the incision. Let us then not hesitate, under the grab of logistical constraints or illusory un-workability of the system or what is called ‘floodgate argument’, to perpetuate a regime long discarded by the RTI law.”

Quoting from a Double Bench decision of Calcutta High Court, the State Commission rejected the argument that discloser of answer sheets would make the examination system un-workable due to large number of candidates seeking copies of answer scripts, the State Commission held that, “Inconvenience, un-workability, unfortunately, are not recognized grounds on which refusal could be based. Preposterous to assume that Parliament was not aware of the ground reality while enacting RTI Act.”

The Commission further held that, “The observations and conclusions drawn in this judgment regarding access to evaluated answer sheets are valid for all types of examinations conducted by public authorities..

However, as the various educational bodies, including the eight Universities in the State and  the School Education Board were not parties to the complaint-case, nor they had an opportunity to be heard, for the time being, therefore, we restrict our decision to examinations conducted for entrance to public services of the State, irrespective of whether such an examination is conducted by PPSC, Subordinate Services Selection Board or a departmental committee or through an authorized agency, like the University Institute of Applied Management Sciences, Punjab University.”

Thus, for the time being the ruling given by the State Commission would be applicable to all examinations conducted for appointment to government jobs in the State of Punjab and not to examinations conducted by educational Institutions like Universities and School Education Board.

The Commission has summoned the relevant record of answer sheets to be produced before it and observed, “Hence, in exercise of powers vested in the Commission under Section 18 (3) (d) and 18 (4) of the Act ibid and the enabling provisions of Civil Procedure Code, we requisition the record of the evaluated OMR answer sheetsof the selected Ex. Servicemen candidates, who appeared in the examination for the post of Inspector Excise and Taxation Punjab, 2008 conducted on 23.11.2008”

The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the respondent PIO as to why penality should not be imposed on him for withholding the information from the present petitioner.

The full bench of the State Commission which gave the judgment was headed by Mr. R.I. Singh, Chief Information Commissioner, Punjab and its other four members were Sh. Surinder Singh, Lt. Gen. P.K. Grover, Sh. PPS Gill, and Sh. DS Kahlon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RANJIT BALIAN APPOINTED AS CHAIRMAN PRTC

Chandigarh May 28:-

          The Punjab Government has appointed Mr. Ranjit Singh Balian as Chairman of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala.

          Disclosing this here today, a spokesman of Punjab Government said that the appointment of Mr. Balina would be effected from the date he assumes the charge. Orders regarding the detail terms and conditions of Mr. Balian’s appointed would be issued separately, the spokesman added.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Home