Right to Information. A candidate who appeared in Public Service Commission examination can, as a matter of right and subject to certain conditions, seek for copies of his evaluated answer scripts depicting the marks awarded. Karnataka High Court 26:8:2020.
The Karnataka Public Service Commission vs Vinay Kumar Ramaiah and another. Writ Petition 8676 /2020. Decided on 26 August 2020. Justice Suraj Govindraj. Judgment link: https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/noticeBoard/WP%208676-2020.pdf
Held: Para 14. The findings are summarized as under:
14.1. A candidate who has appeared for examination conducted by a public service commission can seek for copies of his own evaluated answer sripts along with the marks allotted to each question.
14.2. An applicant cannot seek for copies of evaluated answer scripts of any other person apart from himself/herself.
14.3. In order to make such an application, the applicant has to satisfy the parameters laid down by the Angesh Kumar’s.
14.4. For seeking any such information, the application has to be made in the prescribed format and the prescribed fees are required to be paid.
14.5. The Information Commission Central or State in the event of no public Information Officer being appointed can direct the public authority to take such steps as may be necessary for appointment of a public Information Officer.
14.6. The Information Commission, Central or State cannot appoint a Public Information Officer of its own accord in the event of the direction not being followed.
14.7. 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.
14.8. As per the scheme of RTI Act, 2005 or the Freedom of Information Act, 2002, there is no qualifications prescribed for a Public Information Officer.
14.9. It is the discretion of the authority to appoint a competent person as a Public Information Officer. 14.10. Taking into account that the Public Information Officer would be dealing with legal submissions where under the decisions of the High Court and even the Apex Court could be placed before the Public Information Officer for consideration in a manner of speaking the Public Information Officer would be discharging quasi judicial functions while accepting or rejecting the application for information. 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.
Note: Conditions imposed in UPSC Vs. Angesh Kumar reported in (2018) 4 SCC 530 are extracted by the High Court in the following paragraphs.
10.1.2. The applicant has to be a candidate in the exam.
10.1.3. The applicant can only seek for his own answer scripts.
10.1.4. The applicant is required to make an application in the prescribed form.
10.1.5. The applicant is required to make payment of the due amounts for furnishing of the information pertaining to his evaluated and marked answer scripts.
10.1.6. The information sought for should not come within the exceptions/exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
Compiled by , S.Basavaraj, Daksha Legal
Daksha Legal 