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

fiduciary relationship may include the relationship between the authority conducting the examination
and the examiners who are acting as its appointees for the purpose of evaluating answer sheets. It had
not agreed with the decision of the Karnataka State Information Commission in this regard and has
held that the obligations between the examiners and the authority conducting the examination are
mutual. After examining certain judgments of the Apex Court, the Central Information Commission
has held as under:-
Himachal Pradesh PSC
“Ïn regard to pubic examinations conducted by institutions established by the Constitution
like UPSC or institutions established by any enactment by the Parliament or Rules made
there under like CBSE, Staff Selection Commission, Universities, etc. the function of
which is mainly to conduct examinations and which have an established system as foolproof
as that can be, and which, by their own rules or regulations prohibit disclosure of
evaluated answer sheets or where the disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would result
in rendering the system unworkable in practice and on the basis of the rationale followed
by the Supreme Court in the above two cases, we would like to put at rest the matter of
disclosure of answer sheets. We therefore decide that in such cases, a citizen cannot
seek disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act., 2005.”
10. The State Information Commission Punjab had also considered this issue in its order dated
23.5.2007 in CC NO.773 of 2006 titled Shri Pradeep Kumar complainant, Moga Vs PIO in the
office of IG Police Punjab. It was held in this case that an individual interest cannot be permitted to
override the larger public interest and the complainant was not entitled to the copies of the evaluated
answer sheets whether these pertain to the complainant himself or other candidates.
11. The contention of Shri Bansi Lal that the judgments relied upon by the Central Information
Commission while coming to the conclusion quoted in para 9 above have not discussed provisions of
the RTI Act, 2005 is correct. However, this does not mean that the pronouncements of the Apex
Court on the issue are no longer valid. We tend to agree with the above findings of the Central
Information Commission. The judgments of the Kerala High Court quoted by Shri Bansi Lal appellant
in his submission is based on an order passed by the Central Information Commission in a case having
similar facts, whereas the cases before us differ from these cases. In these circumstances the ruling of
the Kerala High Court is not relevant to the two cases before us. It is also noted that most of the
Information Commissions have not permitted disclosure of evaluated answer sheets.
12. Keeping the above discussion in view as also the decision of the State Information Commission
Punjab, it is decided that the evaluated answer sheets are exempted from disclosure under Section
8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 and thus cannot be furnished to the two appellants. However, the
285