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

Union Public Service Commission
(ii) non-Government organizations substantially financed, directly or indirectly by the funds
provided by the appropriate governments.
26. Thus, a University and educational institution under control and substantially financed directly
or indirectly by the government is a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, even though
the functioning of an educational institution or University may not be directly related to governance as
such, the transparency wherein is the key objective of the Right to Information Act.
27. The Act further recognizes that revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict
with other public interests including efficiency operations of the Government, optimum use of fiscal
resources and the preservation of the confidentiality and accordingly it aims at harmonizing these
conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideals. To secure these
objectives, the Act provides for specified categories of information which cannot be disclosed and as
such these are exempted under various provisions of the Act, primarily Sec 8.
28. It is the contention of the appellants that disclosure of evaluated answer sheets is not exempt
under any of the subsections of Section 8(1). The respondents including the Central Board of Secondary
Education have taken the plea that the evaluated answer sheets are exempted from disclosure under
Section 8(1)(e) as there is a fiduciary relationship between the University/Board and the examiner and
as such disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets will result in breach of this relationship. The appellants
do not agree with this contention of the respondents and in support of their views, they have cited the
decision of the Karnataka Information Commission wherein it has been held that there is no fiduciary
relationship between the examiner and the University or the Board conducting the examination.
29. This Commission in a number of cases has, however, held that the fiduciary relationship between
the examiner and the authority conducting examination exists and therefore, the disclosure of the
information is exempt under Section 8(1)(3). In Ms. Treesa Irish Vs. Kerala Postal Circle case
(ICPB/A2/COC/2006), it has been observed that when the answer papers are evaluated, the authority
conducting the examination and the examiners evaluating the answer sheets stand in a fiduciary
relationship between each other. Such a relationship warrants maintenance of confidentiality by both
of the manner and method of evaluation. That is the reason why while mark sheets are made available
as a matter of course, copies of the evaluated answer papers are not made available to the candidates.
41