Free
Press Journal: Bhopal: Wednesday, 02 December 2015.
The State
Information Commission, taking a strong view of the Vikram University denying
access to his answer-sheet to a student under the RTI, has not only ordered the
varsity to provide the desired document to the appellant but also issued a
show-cause notice to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the varsity,
seeking his personal appearance to decide on why penal action should not be
taken against him.
The PIO was
asked to appear before the Commission on November 24 but he did not turn up and
the hearing was adjourned to a further date.
On September
6, 2013, Bhagwati Lal Patidar, a student of BSc in the University, sought a
certified copy of his Mathematics answer-sheet under the RTI.
As per
section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005, varsities are bound to provide certified
copies of the answer-sheets to the students. The Supreme Court, in its order in
the case of CBSE versus Aditya Bandopadhyaya (2011) has re-iterated that, “Even
if it goes against its rules and regulations, the examining body is bound to
allow the examinees to inspect their answer-sheets and provide a certified copy
thereof”.
But the
varsity refused to provide the copy, quoting a January 6, 2010 decision of the
co-ordination committee of universities, wherein it was said that if the copies
are provided, “it would create legal problems”.
Free Press
has copies of all relevant orders.
Patidar then
moved the State Information Commission in appeal. After hearing the case, the
Commission, on July 10, 2015, ordered the varsity to provide the copy. It
rubbished the varsity’s contention that as the copies were lakhs in number, it
was impossible to keep them safely and that they were destroyed after a period
of six months from the date of examination. The Commission pointed out that as
the “PIO had informed the appellant on September 6, 2013 that he can inspect
the copy, it is clear that the document was in the possession of the varsity”.
The Commission ordered the varsity to locate the answer-sheet and provide it to
the appellant within a period of 15 days. It also sought an explanation from
the PIO.
In his
written explanation, submitted to the Commission in the next hearing, the PIO
again quoted the same decision of the co-ordination committee. Rejecting the
argument, the Commission said that it was clear that the copy was not provided
to the appellant despite the fact it was available and decided to take action
against the PIO.
Incidentally,
the Vikram University is not the only one indulging in this patently illegal
activity. Other universities are doing the same.
.JPG)
.JPG)
