ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.:- 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. In 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. 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. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 & 3, opposed these arguments and supported the orders passed by respondent No.1 as also the Writ Court. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ appeal and the writ petition. 5. In Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 (Supra), the Supreme Court held vide para 26 and 27 that: 26. "The examining bodies (universities, Examination Boards, CBSE, etc.) are neither intelligence nor security organizations and therefore the exemption under Section 24 will not apply to them. The disclosure of information with reference to answer books does not also involve infringement of any copyright and therefore Section 9 will not apply. Resultantly, unless the examining bodies are able to demonstrate that the evaluated answer books fall under any of the categories of exempted "information" enumerated in clauses (a) to (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8, they will be bound to provide access to the information and any applicant can either inspect the document/record, take notes, extracts or obtain certified copies thereof. 27. The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer books are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as they are "information" held in its fiduciary relationship. They fairly conceded that evaluated answer books will not fall under any other exemptions in sub-section (1) of Section 8. Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer books, by either inspecting them or take certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer books are found to be examined under Section 8(l)(e) of the RTI Act." 6. They fairly conceded that evaluated answer books will not fall under any other exemptions in sub-section (1) of Section 8. Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer books, by either inspecting them or take certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer books are found to be examined under Section 8(l)(e) of the RTI Act." 6. This decision was pronounced on 9th of August, 2011, that means after passing of the impugned orders by respondent No. 1 as well as the Writ Court, therefore, neither the Writ Court nor the respondent had occasion to consider this judgment while passing their orders. 7. In light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi to decide the Second Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2010/001326 afresh in light of the above decision rendered by the Supreme Court. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. Decision of Central Information Commission dated 12.11.2010, passed in second appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2010/001326, as also the impugned order passed by the Writ Court are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi to decide afresh the Second Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2010/001326 in accordance with law as early as possible. 9. No cost. Appeal Allowed.