DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD Vs. PUSHPENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent before this Court appeared in the examination held by the petitioner Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board for recruitment of TGT Physical Education teacher. The petitioner was declared unsuccessful in the said examination. Soon after declaration of the result, he submitted an application to the PIO of the petitioner, seeking a copy of his answer sheet in Part-II(Main) of the said examination. Vide communication dated 4 th April, 2011, the PIO declined to make the copy of the answer sheet available to the respondent. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the PIO, the respondent filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority. However, despite the order of the First Appellate Authority, a copy of the answer sheet was not provided to the respondent. He then filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act. Vide impugned order dated 2nd March, 2012, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the answer sheet of the respondent to him, after deleting the name of the examiner. Though the respondent had also sought copies of the answer sheet of other candidates, that request of the respondent was declined by the Commission. Being aggrieved from the order of the Commission, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) The plea taken by the petitioner is that the direction given by the Commission is beyond the scope of RTI Act and contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Ssecondary Education and Another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, 2011 8 SCC 497. A perusal of the decision of the Apex Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay would show that the following four issues primarily arose for consideration of the Apex Court in the said case:

(3.) After examining various provisions of the RTI Act 2005, the Apex Court, inter alia, held as under:-