Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

laws, rules and instructions as according to section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005 this Act is
having overriding effect on any other law including official Secret Act, 1923.
iii) That the respondent PIO of the Board has wrongly stated that the board has fixed
Rs.500/- as rechecking of the answer sheet for which application is required to be
preferred within 21 days from the declaration of result. It is pertinent to submit here that
the time limit of 21 days had already passed when the result card was received by the son
of the appellant through the school concerned as the result card was received after about
two months of the declaration of the result.
iv) That due to this blunder/mistake of the respondent Education Board my son was
totally depressed and I had to face a tough time to console him. He could not even apply
for rechecking well in time and he had now to face a more hard situation for preparing for
compartment examination as well as for the next annual examination of the Plus two.”
5. Both the above appeal pertained to the supply of evaluated answer sheets to the applicants
under the RTI Act, 2005. Hence these were taken up together for consideration by the Full Bench of
the State Information Commission. Replies were submitted by the PIOs concerned in the two appeals
at earlier hearings of these appeals.
6. At the hearing today, Shri Prabhat Sharma appellate Authority-cum-Secretary Himachal
Pradesh Board of School Education Dharamsala, Shri R.S.Verma PIO-cum-Under Secretary, HPPSC
Shimla and Shri Bansi Lal appellant are present. However, Shri Ajit Singh appellant is not present.
He has, however, present at the last hearing and had submitted that the information sought by him was
not exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore should be furnished to him at the
earliest. The PIO-cum-US, HPPSC submitted his supplementary reply to the appeal stating that the
evaluated answer sheet cannot be supplied to the appellant under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act,
2005. The Secretary, HP Board of School Education also submitted his reply stating that the answer
sheet cannot be supplied to the appellant under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The parties present were heard in detail.
Himachal Pradesh PSC
7. The appellant Shri Bansi Lal stated that furnishing of an evaluated answer sheet of a paper is
not exempted under section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 as stated earlier by the other appellant Shri Ajit
Singh. The Board has denied copy of the requisite document quoting its own instructions which is
contrary to the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. A document can be denied to an information
seeker only when it is covered under any of the exemptions mentioned in the RTI Act, 2005 and not
otherwise. In this case since furnishing of photocopy of an evaluated answer sheet is not exempted
283