news details |
|
|
| Appointment of Paramedics under RBSK in Kupwara | | SIC directs CMO to allow inspection of answer sheets | | Early Times Report
Srinagar, May 21: The State Information Commission (SIC) has directed the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) Kupwara to allow inspection of answer sheets by an RTI applicant who wanted to get details about the marks obtained by various candidates during the written test for the post of Paramedical staff under centrally sponsored scheme Rashtriya Bal Swastha Karyakram (RBSK).
Earlier the CMO had denied the access to RTI applicant for undertaking such inspection. Many aspirants have been alleging that large scale bungling has taken place in the appointment of paramedical staff for RBSK scheme in Kupwara district and that is the reason that access was denied to inspect the answer scripts.
Details available with Early Times reveal that an information seeker (RTI applicant ) Arshad Ahmad Khan a resident of Halmatpora Kupwara made a request to PIO Office of the District Development Commissioner Kupwara on 23.09.2014 under J&K RTI Act, 2009 seeking "Details & distribution of marks obtained in Academics, written test& interview of all the candidates. Answer sheets of all the candidates along with question paper & official answer key. The RTI applicant also intended to carry out inspection of records.
This RTI application was transferred by ADC Kupwara to Chief Medical Officer (CMO) Kupwara on 23.09.2014 with the directions to provide requisite information to the applicant within stipulated time period. Thereafter, First Appeal has been filed by the appellant before FAA Office of Deputy Commissioner Kupwara on 31.10.2014 on the ground that PIO did not provide any information in response to his RTI application. Being aggrieved RTI applicant filed 2nd appeal before State Information Commission (SIC) which was received on 15.12.2014 from the appellant alleging that PIO has refused to provide the information sought by him and his First Appeal dated 31.10.2014 before FAA DC's Office Kupwara has also not been disposed.
During proceedings on 13.01.2015, the Commission noted that PIO has responded to the RTI application on 21.10.2014 informing the information seeker.
Since you have not addressed the application of RTI Act to the concerned authority as this office has its own PIO and further the fees you have deposited is not acceptable as it should have been deposited to Secretary RTI Commission is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act" reads SIC order
However, the RTI application was transferred to CMO by ADC Kupwara and therefore the RTI application according to SIC order is deemed as transferred under Section 6(3) of the Act. Besides, information seeker has deposited fee in the shape of Indian Postal Order of Rs. 10/- payable to PIO District Development Commission's Office Kupwara as the RTI application was addressed to PIO District Development Commissioner's Office Kupwara. Accordingly the Commission directed CMO Kupwara to respond to the RTI application as per provisions of the Act and on the basis of records within 10 days. Further, appellant was asked to file objections, if any, within 10 days of receipt of response of PIO.
During hearing at State Information Commission (SIC) on 29.01.2015, Chief Medical Officer, Kupwara, produced evidence of information having been sent to the information seeker through Registered Post on 20.01.2015 comprising of (i) merit list of candidates for the post of Pharmacist under RBSK for 10 blocks (ii) merit list of candidates for the post of Lab. Assistant for Block Handwara and (iii) screening test of candidates invited vide Notification No. 01 of 2014 & 02 of 2014 dated 31.01.2014. Since the time granted for filing of objections, as per directions of the Commission dated 13.01.2015 was not yet over, the case was adjourned to provide opportunity to appellant file, objections, if any.
Scrutiny of the records by SIC reveals that information sought by the appellant at Point No. 1 has been provided by the CMO Kupwara through Registered Post on 20.01.2015. Subsequently, CMO Kupwara informed vide letter dated 16.03.2015 that petitioner has been provided all requisite information and petitioner did not appear in the office nor any communication has been received by him. At Point No. 2 of the RTI application, the appellant has sought answer sheets of all the candidates along with question paper & official answer key.
In a similar case titled Central Board of Secondary Education & others Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has concluded as under: -
"In view of the foregoing, the order of the High Court directing the examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer books is affirmed subject to the clarifications regarding the scope of the RTI Act and the safeguards and conditions subject to which 'information' should be furnished".
The SIC order further reads:
"Therefore, CMO Kupwara shall allow examination of answer book to the RTI applicant if he is an examinee to this examination and for which appellant shall produce documentary proof/evidence to the CMO in this regard within two weeks. The appellant also intends to carry out inspection of records to verify the information provided. In this connection Section 2(i) defines 'right to information' to include: (i) Inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) Taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; As per this definition, inspection of records takes precedence over obtaining certified copies of documents. In the instant case, the information seeker has initially sought certified copies of documents and thereafter sought inspection of same records to verify information provided. The Act provides that a citizen has a right to inspection of records and on the basis of such inspection; he can take notes, extracts and certified copies of documents or records. But once information seeker has asked for specific documents/records and these have been provided to him by the PIO, he cannot seek inspection of same records, as it would divert the resources of public authority as provided under Section 7(9) of the Act". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
