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

He has no authority thereafter to claim that the answer books evaluated by him and
marks awarded by him should be treated as confidential and that copies of the same
should not be made available. In fact such a provision, if it was made, would be a
complete antithesis of the fairness in evaluation system. This Commissioner therefore is
of the view that in the fiduciary relationship between the Authority conducting the examination
and the examiners, while the Authority is the owner/beneficiary of the information, the
examiner is the trustee and not the other way round. The examiners have to hold the
answer scripts and the marks awarded by them as confidential, in trust for the authority
conducting the examination, since they are not the owners of the information. But there is
no such obligation on the authority, which in this case owns the information.”
12. The complainant Shri R K Singh accordingly submitted that fiduciary relationship could be
there only between an owner and a beneficiary and that since the examiner is not a beneficiary there
can be no such fiduciary relationship.
13. Taking the arguments further, complainant Shri Singh submitted that the disclosure of answer
sheets is not protected under Section 8(1)(j). Citing again the aforesaid decision of the KIC, the
appellant submitted that opening up for the evaluation process including marking evaluated answer
sheets available to any one who wishes to see them is necessary as a confidence building measure and
reviving the faith of citizens in these august institutions. Once the evaluated answer sheets are made
freely available, examines who are entrusted with the task of evaluation will be more careful and
objective in their assessment.
Union Public Service Commission
14. In this connection, the appellant also cited the decision of the SIC Punjab in CC No.60/06
and he highlighted the following observations of the Punjab SIC:
“Fiduciary relationship is a relationship of the nature of a trust and is based on confidence
reposed by or on behalf of the beneficiary in the person holding a dominant position qua
the beneficiary. It is often said that the term ‘fiduciary relationship’ is easier to illustrate
than to define with precision. Some of the well known examples of a fiduciary relationship
are the relationship between a lawyer and a client, medical practitioner and patient, guardian
and ward, teacher and student, banker and customer, husband and wife. Like a trustee,
a person having information in a fiduciary capacity holds it for the benefit of the cestui que
trust. The holder of information, therefore, is required to treat it as confidential so as to
protect the interest of the beneficiary. It is in this context that the exemption incorporated
in clause (e) of Section 8(1) RTI Act is to be understood. Clause (e) has been enacted
with a view to protect the interests of the beneficiary by statutorily exempting from disclosure
the information relating to them in the hands of persons standing in a fiduciary relationship.
Clause (e) does not debar the beneficiary of the trust from seeking information from the
trustees that is the persons holding the information in fiduciary capacity. The plea of the
respondent based on Clause (e) of Section 8(1) of RTI Act, 2005 is thus rejected.”
37