ORDER 02.01.2012 - Heard Mr. Bijaya Kumar Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner-OPSC and Mr. B. Rath, learned counsel on behalf of O.P. No.1 and Mr. Bhuyan learned counsel on behalf O.P. No.2. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Orissa Public Service Commission (OPSC), Cuttack questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 08.04.2008 passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner, Orissa Information Commission (hereinafter called the 'SCIC') in Second Appeal No.349 of 2007 under Annexure-6 wherein the SCIC while allowing the Second Appeal filed by the present O.P. No.2, directed the petitioner to provide the information as sought for under the RTI Act, 2005 by the O.P. No.2 within 30 days by speed post after blanking out relevant portions indicated in paragraph-5 of the said order and report compliance thereof. 3. The fact situation giving rise to this writ petition in nutshell is that O.P. No.2 had made an application in prescribed format under Section 6(1) of the R.T.I. Act, 2005 read with Rule 4(1) of the R.T.I. Rules 2005 for supply of photocopies of his Answer Sheets of English Paper-I & II, Arithmetic, General Knowledge, Intelligence test of Junior Assistant Examination conducted by the OPSC. The Public Information Officer-cum-Secretary (PIO) OPSC did not agree to furnish the photo copies of the answer scripts and rejected the application of the O.P. No.2 on the ground that it comes under the exempted category covered under Sections 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of the R.T.I. Act. Against the said rejection order, O.P. No.2 preferred First Appeal before the Special Secretary of OPSC-First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority rejected the said appeal with a finding that the authority conducting the examination and the examiners evaluating the answer papers stand in a fiduciary relationship between each other and such matter warrants maintenance of confidentiality by both the manners and method of evaluation. Being aggrieved O.P. No.2 filed Second Appeal No.349/2007 before the SCIC. The SCIC after hearing the parties, allowed the Second Appeal and directed the PIO to provide information sought for by the O.P. No.2 within 30 days by speed post. Being aggrieved O.P. No.2 filed Second Appeal No.349/2007 before the SCIC. The SCIC after hearing the parties, allowed the Second Appeal and directed the PIO to provide information sought for by the O.P. No.2 within 30 days by speed post. The relevant portion of the findings of the SCIC reads thus: "...The State Commission in many cases have held, by giving consistent and reasoned decisions, that photocopies of evaluated answer sheets are to be supplied, on request to the examinee(s) by blanking out the name of the examiner(s), Chief Examiner etc, their initials and code number etc. The PIO, perhaps has lost sight of the overriding provisions contained in Section 22 of the RTI Act, which supersedes the extant instructions/orders/decision's etc in this regard." 4. Learned counsel for the OPSC in support of the rejection of application of O.P. No.2 by the PIO as well as First Appellate Authority submits that the O.P. No.2 is not entitled to get the information sought for as per the statutory provisions under Sections 8(1 )(e) & 8(1)(j) of the R.T.1. Act, 2005 for the reason that it will affect the fiduciary relationship of the examiners and the OPSC, which is conducting the examination and if it will be disclosed there will be no confidentiality in the manners and method of evaluation and it may have a serious effect if the same will be disclosed and therefore the PIO as well as First Appellate Authority have rightly rejected the prayer of the O.P. No.2 seeking the information. Hence, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-OPSC to set aside the impugned order passed the SCIC. 5. an the other hand Mr. B.N. Rath, learned counsel on behalf of the State Information Commission-O.P. No.1, placing reliance upon the counter filed by the O.P. No.1, and recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others*, (2011) 8 SCC 497 ; and Institute of Chartered Accounts of India v. Shaunak H. Satya and others, (2011) 8 SCC 781 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the SCIC. It is submitted that the impugned order is not only based on through scrutiny of materials available on record but also on clear assessment of pleadings/averments made and after due compliance of the principle of natural justice. It is submitted that the impugned order is not only based on through scrutiny of materials available on record but also on clear assessment of pleadings/averments made and after due compliance of the principle of natural justice. The Act, 2005 clearly debars any challenge to orders finally passed by the State Commission in terms of Section 19(7) read with Section 23. Therefore, the writ petition preferred by the OPSC is nothing but an appeal against the Second Appeal and for that reason the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. It is further submitted that decision of both Public Information Officer as well as the First Appellate Authority contravened the provisions of the Act and the disclosure of documents sought for by the O.P. No.2 do not fall within the ambit of either Section 8(1)(e) or 8(1)(j) of the Act. Moreover, after the publication of the results of the examination, there was no reason for withholding the information sought for by the O.P. No.2. Further, considering the fiduciary aspect or the confidentiality in the matter, the State Commission has made it abundantly clear that the evaluated answer sheets are to be supplied by blanking out/blocking the names of the Examiners, Chief Examiner, their initials/signatures and code number etc. so as to maintain necessary secrecy and to protect individuals from vandalism and strengthen the credibility of the examination system. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order of the SCIC is perfectly legal and valid and it is prayed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. We have heard the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with reference to the R.T.I. Act, 2005 and the judgments upon which the reliance has been placed. 8. While considering a similar questions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, (2011) 8 SCC 497 , placing reliance upon its earlier decisions, held as under:- "22. In people's Union for Civil. 8. While considering a similar questions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, (2011) 8 SCC 497 , placing reliance upon its earlier decisions, held as under:- "22. In people's Union for Civil. Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476 , this Court held that right to information is a facet of the freedom of "speech and expression" as contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and such a right is subject to any reasonable restriction in the interest of the security of the State and subject to exemptions and exceptions. 36. Section 22 of the RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer books fall under the exempted category of information described in clause (e) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer books, even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under the rules/bye-laws of the examining body governing the examinations...... 38. The terms "fiduciary" and "fiduciary relationship" refer to different capacities and relationship, involving a common duty or obligation. "Fiduciary" is one whose intention is to act for the benefit of another so as to matters relevant to the relation between them..... 51. We, therefore, hold that an examining body does not hold the evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference to the evaluated answer books. As no other exemption under Section 8 is available in respect of the evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection sought by the examinee. 53. The answer book usually contains not only the signature and code number of the examiner, but also the signatures and code number of the scrutinizer/coordinator/head examiner. As no other exemption under Section 8 is available in respect of the evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection sought by the examinee. 53. The answer book usually contains not only the signature and code number of the examiner, but also the signatures and code number of the scrutinizer/coordinator/head examiner. The information as to the names or particulars of the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinizers/head examiners are therefore exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger their physical safety. Therefore, if the examinees are to be given access to evaluated answer-books either by permitting inspection or by granting certified copies, such access will have to be given only to that part of the answer-book which does not contain any information or signature of the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinizers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. Those portions of the answer-books which contain information regarding the examiners/co-ordinators/ scrutinizers/head examiners or which may disclose their identity with reference to signature or initials, shall have to be removed, covered: or otherwise severed from the non-exempted part of the answer-books, under Section 10 of RTI Act." 9. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Institute of Chartered Accounts of India v. Shaunak H. Satya and others., (2011) 8 SCC 781 relying upon the aforesaid decision in Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra), 10. Considering the aforesaid entire fact situation of the case we are of the view that the SCIC, State Information Commission, Orissa has rightly passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to supply the photocopies of evaluated answer sheets, on the request of the concerned examinee(s) by blanking out the name of the examiner(s), chief examiner, their initial(s) and Code number etc. The various contentions and legal grounds urged in this writ petition are wholly untenable in law and cannot be accepted. We do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any .merit. Petition dismissed.