SHEETAL KUMAR PAWAR Vs. CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to Employment Notice No.

(2.) /2008, the appellant applied for selection and appointment on the post of Section Engineer (Telecom). The appellant appeared in the written examination. When he could not succeed, he made an application before the concerned authority under Right to Information Act, 2005 and requested to supply a copy of list of the selected candidates and marks obtained by the appellant, to reply, the authorities gave requisite information to the appellant and it was informed that the answer- sheet of the appellant could not be evaluated as he has not bubbled his roll number in the answer-sheet. The appellant then prayed for supply of copy of OMR answer-sheet. The above request of the appellant was denied on the ground that the same is highly confidential document. Against the above action, the appellant filed First Appeal, and thereafter, he went to Chief Information Commissioner. When the reliefs claimed by the appellant were denied, he filed W.P. (C) No. 6558/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 18.11.2010 with a direction to respondent authorities to examine the case of the appellant and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. On receipt of the copy of the above order, respondent No.1 decided the appeal of the appellant and refused to supply the copy of OMR answer-sheet to the appellant relying on full bench decision of Central Information Commission in Complaint Case No. CIC/WB/C2006/00223. Thereafter, the appellant filed another writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 2239/2011 and challenged the validity of the said order passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi on 12.11.2010 (Annexure-P-11 in the writ petition), and prayed for supply of his OMR answer-sheet. The Writ Court held that the order dated 12.11.2010, passed by the Central Information Commission, was based on the full bench decision referred to above and there was no irregularity or illegality in the said order. The Writ Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. It is against the said order passed by the Writ Court on 3rd of May, 2011, the appellant/petitioner has filed this writ appeal. 2. Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Others, (2011)8 SCC 497, has held that every examinee has a right to access his evaluated answer-books, and copies thereof should be supplied to him, therefore, the order passed by the Writ Court be set aside and the respondents' authorities be directed to supply the copy of OMR answer-sheet of the appellant.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ appeal and the writ petition.