- (1.) The writ petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to provide the answer script, and in the event of failure of the respondents to do so, appropriate compensation. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner relying upon various provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 that, the authorities are required to preserve the answer script for 20 years. The writ petitioner had participated in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) of 2012. On the result of TET, 2012 being declared, he had found not to have qualified. He had made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated September 22, 2014 with regard to his answer script. He did not receive any response thereon. He had demanded justice on November 25, 2014. He had also filed a complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on August 13, 2014. He had filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 3596 (W) of 2015. Such writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order dated July 7, 2015. He had deposited a sum of Rs.500/- with the authorities in terms of such order. He has been provided with the Optical Marks Recognition (O.M.R.) sheet. He claims that, such O.M.R. is not his. Inasmuch as the respondent authorities have failed to supply him the original marks sheet which the respondents are obliged to do, the writ petitioner seeks appropriate compensation from the respondents for such failure. In support of the contention that the respondent authorities are obliged to preserve the answer scripts as well as preserve the same for 20 years, reliance is placed on University of Calcutta & Ors. v. Pritam Rooj, 2009 AIR(Cal) 97.
(2.) It is contended on behalf of the Council that, the writ petitioner is guilty of delay. The writ petitioner had taken the TET examination of 2012. The result thereof was published on 2013. The writ petitioner had made an application under the RTI Act, 2005 on September 22, 2014 much after the expiry of the time period prescribed to preserve the answer script. The authorities had resolved on December 4, 2013 to preserve the answer script till December 23, 2013. A notice in terms of such resolution had been put up in the website of the Board. The writ petitioner did not act in terms of such notice. He did not apply within the time period fixed. After the expiry of such time period the authorities are not obliged to produce the answer scripts.
(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the Council authorities that, numerous candidates in excess of a lakh had participated in TET, 2012. It is not physically possible to preserve all the answer scripts of all the candidates for 20 years. In support of the contention that, an applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is entitled to information which are existing reliance is placed on Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., 2011 8 SCC 497. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have considered the materials made available on record.;