G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) (Oral) The petitioner seeks direction to provide the complete information sought vide application dated 27.10.2014 (Annexure P-1) and to impose penalty etc. under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act'). The information which the petitioner is seeking vide the above said application is on account of the fact that he had appeared in the written test for the post of clerk conducted by the Army Recruiting Office by the Zonal Recruiting Office, Ambala Cantt, Ambala (Haryana). The information which is sought vide the above said application reads as under:- "1 Please provide the certified copy of the Answer Sheet of the undersigned. 2 Please provide the Model Answer Key, relating to the aforesaid answer sheet. 3 Please provide the certified copy of the complete Merit List, in reference to the selection of the aforesaid trade."
(2.) It is a matter of record that on 31.10.2014 (Annexure P-2), the evaluated answer sheet was denied on account of the fact that the Central Information Commission had decided at that point of time that the photocopy is not liable to be provided. It is not disputed that the answer key has already been provided to the petitioner vide communication dated 27.01.2015 (Annexure R-2/1) and thus there is no dispute regarding the said demand. Regarding the certified copy of the complete merit list, the information still remains to be provided.
(3.) The Apex Court in ' Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others' 2011(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 914 : 2011(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 371 : 2011 (11) SCR 1028 has held that the supply of answer books do not fall under the category of exemption under Clause 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:- "Therefore the question whether re-evaluation should be permitted or not, does not arise for our consideration. What arises for consideration is the question whether the examinee is entitled to inspect his evaluated answer-books or take certified copies thereof. This right is claimed by the students, not with reference to the rules or bye-laws of examining bodies, but under the RTI Act which enables them and entitles them to have access to the answer-books as 'information' and inspect them and take certified copies thereof. Section 22 of 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 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 (supra) and the subsequent decisions following the same, will not affect or interfere with the right of the examinee seeking inspection of answer-books or taking certified copies thereof. XXXXXXXX "27. 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 evaluated answer-books. As no other exemption under section 8 is available in respect of evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection sought by the examinees.";