JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the State Information Commission directing the Kerala Public Service Commission to furnish the marks obtained by candidates who were included in the rank list for the post of High School Assistant (Sanskrit), Education Department, Palakkad. The 2nd respondent, Mr.M.Krishnanunni, submitted Ext.P1 application dated 04.07.2008 before the 2nd petitioner, the State Public Information Officer, to furnish the above information under The Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “Act, 2005”). The same was rejected by the 2nd petitioner as per Ext.P2 dated 16.07.2008. Subsequently, Ext.P3 appeal was filed before the 3rd petitioner, who is the appellate authority and Additional Secretary (Recruitment) of the Kerala Public Service Commission. Ext.P3 appeal was also rejected as per Ext.P4 order. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed Ext.P5 appeal before the 1st respondent, the State Information Commission. Based on that appeal, Ext.P7 order was passed by the State Information Commissioner directing the petitioners to furnish the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and the interview. Aggrieved by Ext.P7, this writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Adv. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners, and Adv. M.Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. Even though notice was issued to the 2nd respondent, there was no appearance on his behalf. 3. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the circular bearing No.08/11 dated 04.03.2011 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission, the answer sheets and other details of the candidates were already destroyed after six months mentioned in it and as on today, the details mentioned in Ext.P7 cannot be furnished. Moreover, there was no appearance for the 2nd respondent in this writ petition. The request in Ext.P1 was to get the marks obtained by the candidates included in the rank-list for the Post of High School Assistant (Sanskrit), which was published by the Kerala Public Service Commission with effect from 11.07.2007. Since the 2nd respondent has not appeared in this writ petition, it is clear that he is not interested in getting the details now. Moreover, the mark sheets were also destroyed by the petitioners in the light of the circular bearing No.08/11 dated 04.03.2011 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Since the 2nd respondent has not appeared in this writ petition, it is clear that he is not interested in getting the details now. Moreover, the mark sheets were also destroyed by the petitioners in the light of the circular bearing No.08/11 dated 04.03.2011 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission. In such circumstances, the directions in Ext.P7 order of the 1st respondent cannot be implemented. Consequently, Ext.P7 can be quashed. 4. Before parting with this case, it is to be observed that this practice should be stopped by the State Public Information Officers and Central Public Information Officers appointed under the Act 2005. On a perusal of the circular bearing No.08/11 dated 04.03.2011 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission, the answer sheets of the candidates need to be retained only for a period of six months from the date of publication of the Rank List. It is also stated that the answer sheets should be retained in a case where a court case is pending. Similarly, in cases where an application under the Act 2005 is submitted, the answer sheets shall not be destroyed until that application is finally decided. Likewise, if the request is pending consideration before the appellate authority or before this Court, the Public Service Commissioner or other Public authorities concerned shall not destroy the answer sheets till those proceedings are concluded. Unless such a stipulation is made, the purpose of the Act, 2005 will be defeated. The Act 2005 was enacted to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The Central Public Information Officers and State Public Information Officers are constituted as per the Act, 2005. As per Section 22 of the Act, 2005, the provisions of the Act shall have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. Therefore, the Act, 2005 will override other provisions, if it is inconsistent with the same. Therefore, the Act, 2005 will override other provisions, if it is inconsistent with the same. If a citizen applies for getting an information as per the Act, 2005, and the same is rejected, he has got a right of appeal and second appeal before the authority concerned. Even thereafter, if the citizen is aggrieved, he can approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the meanwhile, if the information itself is destroyed, based on certain circulars issued by the authority concerned, that will be an infringement of the right conferred to a citizen as per the Act, 2005. Such practice should be stopped immediately. This direction is applicable to all the examinations conducted by the Public Service Commission, the recognized Universities in the State, in which the Act, 2005 is applicable and the examinations conducted by other public authorities, which will come within the definition of Section 2(h) of the Act 2005. This Court, in the judgment dated 04.07.2013 in WP(C) No.11547 of 2008 already directed Calicut University to see that if information is sought within the prescribed period as per the Act, 2005, the University should not destroy the records, taking aid of the Rules. The same is applicable to all the other Universities and Public authorities. The appropriate Government or the competent authority, as per the Act, will consider the question of framing separate rules for keeping the answer sheets in cases in which proceedings, if any in connection with the supply of information is pending. Till the Rules are framed, the directions issued above should be strictly followed by all Public Authorities which will come within the definition of Section 2(h) of the Act 2005. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: 1. Ext P7 is quashed. 2. The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary of the State and also the Registrars of the recognized Universities in the State of Kerala in which the Act, 2005 is applicable for information and compliance with the directions in this judgment. 3. Ext P7 is quashed. 2. The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary of the State and also the Registrars of the recognized Universities in the State of Kerala in which the Act, 2005 is applicable for information and compliance with the directions in this judgment. 3. The petitioners will take necessary steps to issue appropriate orders to see that if an application under the Right to Information Act is received and if the matter is pending consideration before the statutory authorities mentioned in the Act, 2005 or before a Constitutional Court, the answer sheets and other informations connected to that case shall not be destroyed based on any circular.