Live Law: Bengaluru: Tuesday,
01 September 2020.
The
Karnataka High Court has held that a candidate who has appeared for examination
conducted by a public service commission can seek for copies of his own
evaluated answer scripts, along with the marks allotted to each question under
the Right to Information Act.
Justice
Suraj Govindaraj while partly allowing the petition filed by Karnataka Public
Service Commission challenging the decision of the Karnataka Information
Commissioner (KIC) said "An applicant cannot seek for copies of evaluated
answer scripts of any other person apart from himself/herself."
The
court also held that "The Information Commission - State or Central has no
power to remove or dismiss a public Information Officer already appointed by
any public Authority for that organization."
Stating
that as a PIO would be discharging quasi-judicial functions while accepting or
rejecting the application for information. It said "This aspect may be
taken into consideration by the Legislature in its wisdom to formulate the
requirements of qualification, if any, for the appointment of a person as a
Public Information Officer."
Case
background:
By way
of notification dated 12.05.2017 recruitment process for filling up of 428
posts of Gazetted Probationers (GP-2015 recruitment) was initiated by KPSC, in
terms of the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by
competitive examinations) Rules, 1997 ("GP Rules").
Candidate,
Vinay Kumar Ramaiah being one of the candidates had applied in pursuance of the
said notification, on the basis of his performance he stood qualified for the
main examination. He thus appeared for the main written examination. On the
process of selection being completed, the petitioner published the final
selection list.
Ramaiah
filed an application under RTI on January 16, seeking for answer scripts with
marks awarded to each question. The PIO by way of an endorsement dated February
14, informed him that in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in UPSC Vs.
Angesh Kumar reported in (2018) 4 SCC 530, the request cannot be acceded to and
as such rejected the application.
Aggrieved
by the endorsement he preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority,
on February 28. However, on account of the lockdown imposed due to COVID-19,
the first Appellate Authority could not dispose of the appeal within the
prescribed time. By order dated 01.06.2020, the first Appellate Authority
dismissed the appeal.
While
the matter was pending before the first Appellate Authority, Ramaiah approached
KIC, with a complaint against KPSC, under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act.
On
June 18, the KIC passed the following order:
KIC by quoting
Section 19(8)(a)(ii) of the RTI Act has appointed the Controller of
Examinations, KPSC as Public Information Officer and Secretary KPSC as the
First Appellate Authority. KIC directed the Controller of Examinations to
provide information sought by the Appellant therein (R-1 herein) free of cost.
This
order was challenged by the KPSC before the High Court.
Arguments:
Senior
Advocate P.S.Rajagopal along with Advocate Reuben Jacob, appearing for KPSC
argued that Ramaiah could not have sought for disclosure of marks awarded to
each question in each of the main written examinations in terms of the decision
of the Apex Court in the Case of Angesh Kumar (supra). Further, the PIO as also
the first Appellate Authority by relying upon the decision rejected the
application filed by the petitioner and as such respondent, No.2-KIC could not
have passed the above directions. The decision of the apex court is applicable
to the present case also and the findings of the respondent No.2-KIC that the
said decision is not applicable to the present facts, is erroneous.
The plea
was opposed by Advocate Kantharaja, along with Advocate Ravi H.K, on behalf of
Ramaiah. It was argued that "The information which has been sought for by
the petitioner is neither confidential nor sensitive inasmuch as the
information sought for is that relating to the petitioner and not any third
party."
Further,
Ramaiah had approached the first Appellate Authority, the said Authority did
not dispose of the appeal within the given time frame and as such left with no
other alternative, he had to approach respondent KIC to do justice.
Moreover,
the PIO who has been appointed is not a competent authority inasmuch as the PIO
is a Section Officer who has no knowledge of the nuances of the law applicable
to the facts of the situation, the PIO has not considered the implications of
the judgements cited before him.
Court
said:
In the
present case what the petitioner is seeking for is his own evaluated answer
script. He has not sought for any information relating to any third party or
any confidential information, but has sought for information only pertaining to
himself.
Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the embargo in the decision of the
Apex Court in Angesh Kumar would not be applicable to the present Case.
It
observed "Freedom of Information being a fundamental right as also human
right any person would be entitled to apply for and receive information
especially pertaining to himself which is held by any public authority. The
reasons for requesting such information may be myriad. Whatever the reasons may
be when a particular information sought for is relating to the person applying
for such information, the authorities concerned cannot refuse the furnishing of
such information."
On
removal and appointment of PIO:
The
court said "Looking at from any angle it was impermissible for the 2nd
respondent (KIC) to have removed the existing Public Information Officer and or
appoint another Public Information Officer in place of such removed
person."
It
clarified "Though the 2nd respondent (KIC) may have superintendence power
over the actions of any Public Information Officer, the same would not extend
to the removal of an already appointed Information Officer and/or appointment
of any other person as a Public Information Officer."
On
perusal of Section 19(8)(a)(ii) the court held "In terms of Section 19(8),
it is only a direction that could be issued by the Central Information
Commission or by the State Information Commission as the Case may be requiring
the Public Authority to appoint a Public Information Officer if no such person
has already been appointed. Once the person has been appointed, there is
nothing which has been provided under Section 19 of the RTI Act enabling
removal of such person by the KIC."
It also
made it clear that "Taking into account the scheme of the Act as it exists
it is not for the KIC to ascertain as regards the education or other
qualification of a person appointed as a PIO. It only exercises supervisory
jurisdiction over the actions taken by the Public Information Officer and
nothing else."
.JPG)
.JPG)
