Poonam Upadhyay v. PIO, Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board

CIC/SA/A/2014/001844

Having heard the submission and after perusal of records, the Commission observed that the appellant asked the records of 2010 which are not uploaded in the website and also not provided that copy of answer sheet to the appellant at first instances which they should have   provided   as   per   the   SC   direction   in   the   case   of  Central   Board   of   Secondary Education   &   Anr.   …   Appellants   Vs.   Aditya   Bandopadhyay   &   Ors.   (CIVIL   APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009]), operating part of the decision is as under:

“27. We, therefore, hold that an examining body does not hold the evaluated answer­books in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption under section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer­books. As no other exemption under section 8 is 39 available in respect of evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection sought by the examinees.”

6. Thus,   Commission   directs   the   respondent   authority   to   upload   the   results,   marks obtained or anything regarding selection and non­selection of candidates on their official website.   It   is   a   duty   of   the   public   authority   to   inform   both   selected   and   non   selected candidates, the entire information about decision of selection board along with reasons, so that the appellant like Poonam Upadhya need not file any more RTI applications for that routine information.  This information has to be furnished under Section 4 (1) (b) of RTI Act. Hence, the above mentioned information shall be disclosed on the website within 21 days from the date of receipt of order. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

CIC/SA/A/2014/001844 dated :08.05.2015