Appellant appeared for an in-house examination for promotion and sought a copy of the model answers; He also wanted a copy of the orders of the Railway Board which states that a reassessment is not possible - CIC: provide the information
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 24-1-2012 requesting for a copy of affidavit and other information relating to model answer of Traffic and Statistics and Traffic Books of the Appendix III Part II examination of 2006 exam held on 2008 and other related issues. The appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) on 10-5-2012. Neither the PIO nor the FAA responded to the RTI application. The appellant filed a second appeal with the Commission on 5-9-2013.
2. The appellant was heard through videoconferencing. The respondent was personally present during the hearing.
3. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 24-1-2012 and stated that he is feeling harassed as he has not been able to get information about his own self in context of an examination which he had given for his departmental promotion. The appellant stated that he appeared in this examination in 2006 and 2008. The appellant said that when he examined the paper, he found that he had been given marks which were less than what his performance reflected. The appellant said that he was given 5 marks less.
4. In the above background, the appellant said that he has made a request for reassessment but he got a response in the negative. The appellant said that he was informed that reassessment is not possible and that in any case the assessment has been done on the basis of a model answer. The appellant said that he asked for the model answer that was also not given to him.
5. During the course of the hearing, the appellant’s focus was on the following information:
(a) a copy of the model answer;
(b) a copy of the orders of the Railway Board which states that a reassessment is not possible; and
(c) that if the reassessment is possible then when this will be done.
6. The respondent stated that this examination was an inhouse examination for identifying and selecting officials who could be placed in the zone of consideration for being considered for promotion to the supervisory levels. The respondent stated that this is a well established examination which is conducted in accordance with the norms prescribed under the Indian Railways Establishment Manual (IREM). The respondent stated that in so far as the RTI application is concerned, an application dated 26-9-2011 was received from the appellant which was responded to on 25-10-2011. The respondent stated that the Manual is silent on the question of reassessment and that as far as she understands there has never been any reassessment.
7. The respondent stated that this examination is a very well established examination in which 4,000 examinees appear and that taking into consideration that this is a departmental examination and the examination is conducted fairly, that they have no intention to keep any information away from the appellant.
8. The respondent further stated that as far as the position of reassessment is concerned that has been explained by her and as far as the issue of making available a copy of the model answer is concerned, the respondent stated that it appears that the application by the appellant was diverted to another section from where he has got a response. The respondent stated that she will provide a copy of the model answer to the appellant by post.
9. The respondent further stated that there is a High Court order which was occasioned when one of the examinees went to the Court to press for reassessment and the High Court felt that the case for reassessment ought to be dismissed.
10. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information sought in para 5 above in context of the RTI application. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Abhijit Sen v. Ministry of Railways Railway Board in Decision No.CIC/BS/A/2013/002273/VS/09423