Registrar, University of Rajasthan vs Manju Yadav and Others

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—This writ petition been filed by the petitioner, Rajasthan University through its Registrar challenging order dated 26.11.2014 passed by Chief Information Commissioner, State of Rajasthan(for short ''the Chief Information Commissioner'') whereby appeal filed by the Respondent No. 1-appellant has been allowed with cost of 2,000/- and the petitioner-University has been directed to provide the information sought by Respondent No. 1 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Respondent No. 1 filed an application on 30.06.2011 under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005(for short ''R.T.I. Act'') seeking photocopy of answering sheet of LL.B. IInd Year (Acad. Suppl.) Examination, 2010 of subject of Law of Crimes. The petitioner sent the reply to the Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 09.08.2011 stating therein that the answer sheet is the confidential document of the University and as per provision of 169-J of the Ordinance of University, the photocopy thereof cannot be provided to her. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Vice Chancellor of University(First Appellate Authority) on 10.09.2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.10.2011 reiterating the aforesaid ground. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Respondent No. 1 filed second appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner. The petitioner-University filed reply to second appeal stating that there is no provision to supply photocopy of answer sheet in the light of the Ordinance 169-J of the petitioner-University. However, the Chief Information Commissioner, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal of the Respondent No. 1 with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- with direction to the petitioner-University to provide the information sought by the Respondent No. 1 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Chief Information Commissioner has not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already clarified the facts and apprised the same to Respondent No. 1 by way of its reply, but despite that, Chief Information Commissioner passed the impugned order and imposed compensation upon the petitioner. As per provision of 169-J of the Ordinance of the University, certified copy of the answer sheet cannot be supplied to the candidate. However, the petitioner clearly stated in its reply filed before the Chief Information Commissioner that the petitioner has taken a step in its meeting to make arrangement to provide the photocopy of answer book to concerned candidate on his/her desire but it is not be arranged as soon as possible. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Chief Information Commissioner has not appreciated the findings recorded by the Central Information Commissioner in the case of Nisha v. Central Information Officer and Kerala Postal Circle and Neeraj Kumar Singhal v. S.B. Gandhi, Senior D.G.M. Western Railway in which it has been held that answer sheet cannot be allowed to be inspected nor to be given photocopies of the same to the candidates or other persons. It is submitted that the Chief Information Commissioner has gone beyond the purview of Section 8 and 24 of the R.T.I. Act.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

The Chief Information Commissioner while deciding the second appeal filed by the Respondent No. 1 has recorded a finding that the confidentiality clause of the university ordinance cannot come in the way of providing information under R.T.I. Act, in view of the overriding effect of the R.T.I. Act under Section 22. Section 8(1e) cannot be applied in this case as the information pertains to the applicant herself. The Chief Information Commissioner has fortified its findings by placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, (2011) 9 JT 212 : (2011) 3 RCR(Civil) 914 : (2011) 8 SCALE 645 : (2011) 8 SCC 497 : (2011) AIRSCW 4888 . In that view of the matter, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner and no interference whatsoever is called for by this Court.

There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner-University is granted one month''s further time from the date of receipt of copy of this order to make compliance of order dated 26.11.2014 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner.

Stay application also stands dismissed.