JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Public Information Officer, Office of the Principal Secretary to the Government of U.P. Secondary Education, U.P. Lucknow and Others have filed this petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure-1 dated 17.7.2009 passed by respondent no. 1, State Information Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow in context of applications filed by respondents 2 to 14 under the Right to Information Act 2005. 2. The facts in brief are that respondents 2 to 14 made applications under Section 6 of The Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "RTI Act") asking for certain copies of evaluated answer books for some of the papers of High School/Intermediate Examination, 2008. Apparently, the examination was conducted by petitioner No. 4 (Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad). Applications have been placed on record as Annexures 2 to 9. 3. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that there is no provision under the Regulations to provide copies of evaluated answer books to the examinees/applicants (respondents 2 to 14). Accordingly, a communication was sent to them. Aggrieved by rejection of the applications under RTI Act, respondents 2 to 14 filed a complaint before respondent No. 1, presumably under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Respondent No. 1 issued notice to the petitioners. Apparently, separate replies were furnished by different petitioner/authorities which have been placed on record as Annexures 10 to 17 to the writ petition. Respondent No. 1 on considering the issue passed order dated 17.7.2009, Annexure-1, impugned by way of this petition. 4. The first contention on behalf of the petitioners is that no direction can be issued for providing answer books to the examinees/respondent nos. 2 to 14 because regulations do not provide for giving such information. The second contention is that the State Information Commissioner has no legal authority or jurisdiction to issue direction for framing a scheme for providing information. It has been pleaded that admittedly, the answer books have been weeded out after expiry of the time frame provided under the orders issued by the Government authorities in that behalf. In such circumstances, information/answer books could not have been made available to respondents 2 to 14. It has been pleaded that admittedly, the answer books have been weeded out after expiry of the time frame provided under the orders issued by the Government authorities in that behalf. In such circumstances, information/answer books could not have been made available to respondents 2 to 14. It has also been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that in the facts and circumstances of the case respondent No. 1 could have only dismissed the complaints and not issued any directions for prospective dispensation and administration. 5. Mr. Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has been fair to the Court and has given qualitative assistance by referring to the law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 497 and Kerala Public Service Commission and Others vs. State Information commission and Another, (2016) 3 SCC 417 . Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has pointed out that the scope of providing information, in the circumstances that arise from this case, has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It has been contended by the learned counsel that having regard to the scheme of the RTI Act, it is the right of an examinee under RTI Act to inspect his evaluated answer books in a public examination. It has been contended that such information is neither intelligence nor relates to security organisations, therefore, exemption under Section 24 of the RTI Act will not apply. Disclosure of information with reference to answer books does not involve infringement of any copyright. 6. We have heard learned counsels, have gone through the pleadings, and have considered the statutory provisions and the law, as cited. 7. English translation of gist of the operative and relevant portion from the impugned order dated 17.7.2009 reads as under : "ORDER In the above circumstances, Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad is directed to prepare an action plan so that the answer sheets that are evaluated within the next one month be made available to the applicants under the provisions of Right to Information Act within a specified time in order of the applications. The benefit of this order would be available only to the examinees or their guardians who shall only be entitled to get the answer sheets under the Act. The benefit of this order would be available only to the examinees or their guardians who shall only be entitled to get the answer sheets under the Act. Order passed by the Commission would be applicable only for 2009 examinations and also the ensuing examinations relating to Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad. Since the answer sheets relating to examinations for the year 2008 have already been weeded out, no order is being passed in that regard. A copy of this order be sent by registered post to Principal Secretary (Madhyamic Shiksha), U.P. Government, Lucknow, Director, Madhyamic Shiksha U.P. Allahabad and the Secretary, Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad, and also the complainants, within a week. Subject to above directions, the complaints are decided. 17-07-2009." 8. We find that the issue raised by the petitioners is squarely covered by judgment rendered in Aditya Bandopadhyay's case. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India framed the following questions for consideration in para 11 of the judgment : "11. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for our consideration : "(i) Whether an examinee's right to information under the RTI Act includes a right to inspect his evaluated answer books in a public examination or taking certified copies thereof? (ii) Whether the decision of this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and other cases referred to above, in any way affect or interfere with the right of an examinee seeking inspection of his answer books or seeking certified copies thereof? (iii) Whether an examining body holds the evaluated answer books "in a fiduciary relationship" and consequently has no obligation to give inspection of the evaluated answer books under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act? (iv) If the examinee is entitled to inspection of the evaluated answer books or seek certified copies thereof, whether such right is subject to any limitations, conditions or safeguards?" The following (relevant portion only) has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court : "26. The examining bodies (universities, Examination Boards, CBSE, etc.) are neither intelligence nor security organisations 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. The examining bodies (universities, Examination Boards, CBSE, etc.) are neither intelligence nor security organisations 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 exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. xxxxxxxx 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. Therefore, the decision of this Court in Maharashtra State Board, (1984) 4 SCC 27 and the subsequent decisions following the same, will not affect or interfere with the right of the examinee seeking inspection of the answer books or taking certified copies thereof. xxxxxxxxx 51. We, therefore, hold that an examining body does not hold the evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship. xxxxxxxxx 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 examinees. xxxxxxxxxx 55. If the rules and regulations governing the functioning of the respective public authority require preservation of the information for only a limited period, the applicant for information will be entitled to such information only if he seeks the information when it is available with the public authority. For example, with reference to answer books, if an examinee makes an application to CBSE for inspection or grant of certified copies beyond three months (or six months or such other period prescribed for preservation of the records in regard to other examining bodies) from the date of declaration of results, the application could be rejected on the ground that such information is not available. The power of the Information Commission under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act to require a public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provision of the Act, does not include a power to direct the public authority to preserve the information, for any period larger than what is provided under the rules and regulations of the public authority." In Kerala Public Service Commission's case, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in the following terms in paras 8, 9 and 10 : "8. In the present case, PSC has taken upon itself in appointing the examiners to evaluate the answer papers and as such, PSC and examiners stand in a principal-agent relationship. Here PSC in the shoes of a principal has entrusted the task of evaluating the answer papers to the examiners. Consequently, examiners in the position of agents are bound to evaluate the answer papers as per the instructions given by PSC. As a result, a fiduciary relationship is established between PSC and the examiners. Therefore, any information shared between them is not liable to be disclosed. Consequently, examiners in the position of agents are bound to evaluate the answer papers as per the instructions given by PSC. As a result, a fiduciary relationship is established between PSC and the examiners. Therefore, any information shared between them is not liable to be disclosed. Furthermore, the information seeker has no role to play in this and we do not see any logical reason as to how this will benefit him or the public at large. We would like to point out that the disclosure of the identity of examiners is in the least interest of the general public and also any attempt to reveal the examiner's identity will give rise to dire consequences. Therefore, in our considered opinion revealing examiner's identity will only lead to confusion and public unrest. Hence, we are not inclined to agree with the decision of the Kerala High Court with respect to the second question. 9. 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. This practice 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 examined/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. 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. 10. We, therefore, allow these appeals in part and modify the judgment only to the extent that the respondent applicants are not entitled to the disclosure of names of the examiners as sought for by them." 9. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Aditya Bandopadhyay's case and Kerala Public Service Commission's case can be summarised in the following terms:- (a) The examining bodies are bound to provide access to the answer books/information to the examinees in a public examinaton. In the circumstances that arise in the case under consideration, answer books will not fall under any of the exemptions provided under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act. The examining body does not hold the evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship therefore cannot claim protection/ exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer books, by either inspecting them or taking certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer books/ information are found to be exempted under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. (b) The examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and to take copies of his evaluated answer books, even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under the rules/bye laws/regulations of the examining body governing the examination. (c) Authorities are not bound to provide information as regards identity of the examiner, even if information in that regard is sought by an examinee/applicant. (d) In case the rules and regulations governing the functioning of the respective public authority require preservation of the information for only a limited period, the applicant for information will be entitled to such information only if he seeks the information when it is available with the public authority. (d) In case the rules and regulations governing the functioning of the respective public authority require preservation of the information for only a limited period, the applicant for information will be entitled to such information only if he seeks the information when it is available with the public authority. Application for furnishing information/answer books can be rejected on the ground that such information is not available because the answer books have been weeded out/information has not been preserved beyond the period provided in the rules and regulations. (e) The power of the information commission under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act to require a public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance of the RTI Act does not include a power to direct the public authority to preserve the information, for any period larger than what is provided under the rules and regulations of the public authority. 10. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and as summarized above, the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. It has been held in unequivocal and clear terms that it is the right of a examinee under Right to Information Act to inspect his evaluated answer book in a public examination. As held hereinabove the case of the applicants, respondents 2 to 14 does not fall within any exemption provided under the RTI Act. Thus, the petitioners were bound by law to provide the answer books/information to the applicant/respondents 2 to 14. However, since under the Rules and Regulations the answer books had been weeded out and the information was no more available with the petitioner authorities, they were not bound under the provisions of the RTI Act to provide such information or to maintain or preserve such information beyond the period provided under the Rules and Regulations. Respondent no. 1, however, had no jurisdiction to direct the petitioners to frame an action plan or scheme. Such direction appears to be beyond the scope of the RTI Act. It is, however, made clear that the authorities under the Right to Information Act are required to ensure that the right of an applicant under the said Act is protected and information/answer book is supplied as soon as application is made. Such direction appears to be beyond the scope of the RTI Act. It is, however, made clear that the authorities under the Right to Information Act are required to ensure that the right of an applicant under the said Act is protected and information/answer book is supplied as soon as application is made. We are conscious of the fact that lacs of students take examinations and a large number of students might want to exercise right under the Right to Information Act for getting information/access to their answer sheets. We are also conscious of the fact that the Regulations require such answer sheets to be weeded out within a time frame. In these circumstances, the petitioner/authorities are required to ensure that in case an application is made for giving information in regard to an answer book, the same is entertained at the earliest and in case the date of weeding is approaching, the answer sheet is preserved so as to protect the right of such applicants vested under RTI Act. This direction however would not mean that the period for preserving the information is being extended. It only implies that in case information/ answer books are sought by the examinees within the period of preservation provided by the regulations, such right of the examinee is protected. Issuance of this direction is also necessary because future/career of the students hinges on the result. In such circumstances, it becomes duty of every public servant to ensure providing information under the Right to Information Act at the earliest, in enforcement of the right of such applicant. This direction is being issued to give meaning to the Right to Information Act. 11. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of.