Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1978 (HP)

SHAMSHER SINGH v. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

2016-09-15

SANDEEP SHARMA, SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "A. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 26.05.2016 (Annexure P-6), 24.12.2015 (Annexure P-4) and impugned communication dated 05.11.2015 (Annexure P-2). B. That the Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus whereby the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to supply the information as sought by the petitioner, i.e. the copy of his Answer Sheet which he had submitted while appearing in the 27th batch Upper Class Course for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in Police Training College, Daroh, which was conducted w.e.f. 16.04.2015 to 30.07.2015." 2. Close scrutiny of material available on record suggests that the petitioner is aggrieved with order dated 26.05.2016, passed by the State Information Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, whereby his appeal filed against order dated 24.12.2015, passed by the First Appellate Authority-cum-Inspector General of Police, Police Training College, Daroh, District Kangra, H.P., has been dismissed. Perusal of Annexure P-2, i.e., order dated 05.11.2015, issued by the Public Information Officer-cum-Superintendent of Police, Police Training College, Daroh, District Kangra, H.P., suggests that present petitioner applied under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the RTI Act), for supply of scanned copy of his answer sheet of examination conducted by the Board duly constituted under PTC Manual. However, fact remains that vide aforesaid communication dated 05.11.2015, his request for supply of scanned copy was rejected and he was only allowed to inspect the answer sheet on any working day after giving three days' advance intimation to the office with requisite fee, as prescribed under the RTI Act. 3. Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the Public Information Officer-cum-Superintendent of Police, Police Training College, Daroh, District Kangra, H.P., filed First Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, before the Appellate Authority, who vide order dated 24.12.2015, reiterated the stand taken by the Public Information Officer and rejected the appeal. 4. 3. Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the Public Information Officer-cum-Superintendent of Police, Police Training College, Daroh, District Kangra, H.P., filed First Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, before the Appellate Authority, who vide order dated 24.12.2015, reiterated the stand taken by the Public Information Officer and rejected the appeal. 4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the First Appellate Authority, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, who vide order dated 26.05.2016, while rejecting the appeal, preferred by the petitioner, held that the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable in the case of the petitioner, but he reserved liberty to the petitioner to inspect his evaluated answer sheet. 5. In the aforesaid background, petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders passed by the State Information Commissioner as well as the First Appellate Authority, approached this Court by way of present petition seeking reliefs as having reproduced herein above. During the proceeding of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner invited our attention to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 823-854 of 2016, titled as Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. v. The State Information Commission & Anr. wherein issue with regard to supply of scanned copies of answer sheet, if any, under the RTI Act, has been dealt with elaborately. 6. Careful perusal of the judgment referred to herein above, clearly suggests that the present issue at hand, is no more res integra, rather the same stands duly settled with the aforesaid pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It would be profitable to reproduce relevant portion of the judgment cited above:- "10. In the present case the request of the information seeker about the information of his answer sheets and details of the interview marks can be and should be provided to him. It is not something which a public authority keeps it under a fiduciary capacity. Even disclosing the marks and the answer sheets to the candidates will ensure that the candidates have been given marks according to their performance in the exam. It is not something which a public authority keeps it under a fiduciary capacity. Even disclosing the marks and the answer sheets to the candidates will ensure that the candidates have been given marks according to their performance in the exam. This practise will ensure a fair play in this competitive environment, where candidate puts his time in preparing for the competitive exams, but, the request of the information seeker about the details of the person who had examine/checked the paper cannot and shall not be provided to the information seeker as the relationship between the public authority i.e. Service Commission and the Examiners is totally within fiduciary relationship. The Commission has reposed trust on the examiners that they will check the exam papers with utmost care, honesty and impartially and, similarly, the Examiners have faith that they will not be facing any unfortunate consequences for doing their job properly. If we allow disclosing name of the examiners in every exam, the unsuccessful candidates may try to take revenge from the examiners for doing their job properly. This may, further, create a situation where the potential candidates in the next similar exam, especially in the same state or in the same level will try to contact the disclosed examiners for any potential gain by illegal means in the potential exam." 7. Consequently, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, present petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the impugned order dated 24.12.2015 (Annexure P-4), passed by Inspector General of Police, Police Training College, Daroh, as also order dated 26.05.2016 (Annexure P-6), passed by State Information Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, are hereby quashed and set aside with a direction to respondent No.3 to furnish relevant information, as sought by the petitioner by way of application, filed under RTI Act, within a period of two weeks, strictly in terms of the law referred to in Kerala Public Service Commission (supra). 8. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.