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

36
10. Opening the argument, Mr. R.K.Singh submitted that the objective of the RTI Act is to bring
in transparency in the working of every public authority and it is in public interest that all relevant
information must be made available to a citizen seeking information under the RTI Act. He submitted
that once the process of examination is over, every thing concerning the examination must come in
public domain. Citing the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in The President, Board of Secondary
Education, Orissa & another vs D. Suvankar & another, he submitted that the award of the marks by
an examiner has to be fair and no element of chance or luck should be introduced. An examination is
a stepping-stone in career advancement of a student. Absence of a provision for revaluation cannot
be a shield for the Examiner to arbitrarily evaluate the answer script.
11. He also submitted that there can be no relationship between an owner and beneficiary and
since the examiner is not a beneficiary, there can be no fiduciary relationship between the examiner
and the University or the Board. In this context, he cited the decision of the Karnataka Information
Commission in KIC/196/APPL/2586 wherein the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has
observed as follows:
Union Public Service Commission
“As may be seen, Section 8(1)(e) exempts disclosure of information available to a
person in his fiduciary relationship. According to Oxford dictionary, the word “fiduciary”
means “involving trust, especially with regard to relationship between a trustee and a
beneficiary”. The fiduciary relationship for the purposes of this section would imply that
the person holding the information is not the owner of the information but holds it in trust
for someone else who is the owner and the beneficiary. In this case, it therefore needs to
be examined whether this type of relationship exists between the authority conducting the
examination and the examiners as recognized by CIC and pleaded by the Respondent.
The relationship between the authority conducting the examination and the examiners
is governed by the terms and conditions of appointment of the examiners. It is wrong to
say that confidentiality should be maintained by both, of the manner and method of
evaluation. Firstly, this Commission finds it difficult to endorse the general statement that
the manner and method of evaluation should be kept confidential. In this Commission’s
view, general instructions regarding the manner and method of evaluation must be consistent
and should be made know in advance to the candidates, so that they are aware as to how
their answers would be evaluated. As regards “key” or “model” answers, these should
also be made public after the entire process of selection is over.
Secondly, while examiners are bound by the secrecy clause in their order of
appointment, there can be no such obligation on the part of the authority conducting the
examination. There is no agreement between the examiners and the authority conducting
the examination that the information regarding evaluation and award of marks is being
held by the authority conducting the examination in trust and on behalf of the examiners.
In fact, the examiner has been assigned a task and thereafter his responsibility censes.