Inspection of the original OMR sheet offered to applicant to clarify his doubts
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking information related to his performance in the combined police examination conducted by the SSC in 2011. The Public Information Officer (PIO), SSC transferred the application it to his counterpart in the headquarters but no information was provided to the applicant. The applicant filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC). The Commission directed the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to look into the matter and ensure that the desired information was disclosed. Following this direction, the PIO informed the applicant that he had failed to code his role number in the OMR sheet and therefore it was not evaluated. A copy of the OMR sheet was also provided to him.
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the photocopy of the OMR sheet provided to him was not very clear and he strongly felt that he had written his roll number.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that in the interest of the information seeker it would be fair to show him the original OMR sheet so that he could see for himself if he had filled up the roll number or not. The CIC directed the PIO, SSC to get the original OMR sheet from the headquarters and then invite the appellant to inspect it. Under section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show- cause notice to the PIO to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him as he failed to respond to the appellant even though the RTI application was forwarded to him.
Citation: Ms. Pankaj Kumar Tiwari v. Staff Selection Commission in File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000493
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/862
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission