However the information requested by the candidate was not given by the PIO (Public Information officer) of MPSC in the stipulated time period as required under the provision of RTI. The response of the PIO came 25 days after the deadline in which the PIO provided only one of the requested five points of information. The other information was denied to the candidate by stating that it caused invasion of privacy. The unresponsive nature of the PIO prompted the candidate to bring his case before the DAA (Departmental Appelate Authority) of MPSC. The reply of DAA was that there is no law to penalise the PIO for the delay and that the remaining information could not be provided under Section 8 i (j) of RTI. This clause states, “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizens information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”

The reply of DAA clearly indicates that the individual in charge has not understood the closure or has misinterpreted the law. Whatever may be the case it goes a long way to show that when people are not accountable on a daily basis, lackluster attitude is developed by them. The words in the clause ‘larger public interest justifies the disclosure’ and ‘information which relates to any public activity or interest’ are applicable in this case.

Unsatisfied with the reply of DAA the determined candidate brought his case before the Chief Information Officer (CIC). The CIC took apt action and asked for a written statement on the issues raised by the candidate from the DAA and a show cause notice to the PIO as to why he should not be penalised according to law. Two interesting issues came to light in the statement of DAA.

Firstly, let us look at the justification given to aid the actions of the PIO. It stated and I quote “…. As you are aware the official files move from one table to another and in the process the furnishing of the information as sought for might get delayed. This cannot be construed as intentional or deliberate… This delay in furnishing the information to the Applicant/Appellant is genuine and acceptable and can be condoned…..’

Well the officer himself unknowingly questioned their own system proclaiming it to be inefficient. It took the PIO 1month and 25 days to furnish just one bit of information that is the method in which the answer scripts are evaluated and what procedure is followed during evaluation. The other information was denied to him on grounds of infringement on privacy. Nothing more needs to be said on the above.

What is clear is that MPSC is hell bent on preserving its secrecy of which even the Illuminati might be proud of.

Secondly, in the statement it was mentioned that ‘…..If information no 2 and 3 as sought for by the Applicant/ Appellant are furnished I am afraid that it will open a flood gate to other candidates to resort to the same course of action as done by the Applicant/Appelant and in the process may make the commission unworkable…..’

The very statement questions the credibility of the department. MPSC has been bestowed with a prime job of selecting the future government servants who will make the functioning smoother and better. Points number 2 and 3 of the information sought were a copy if answer script and copy of the modal answers. It must be the remembered that said examination is the first round and is objective in nature. The sheets are OMR (Optical Mark Reader). So they are basically fed into the computer and the selections made by a candidate in his answer sheet are tallied with those already present in the computer, awarding marks or decreasing as set by the rules. Entrance exams such as CAT (Common Aptitude Test) where lakhs of students apply use this pattern and declare the result on their official websites. In computer terms, the amount of storage space required in the case of MPSC to put in the information should not be more then a few MB’s in this case. This can be implemented by the agency which has been used for procuring OMR sheets and their subsequent correction. So the question of flood gates does not arise. It is rightly said that ignorance is bliss and not knowing about the car you are driving in is very dangerous. At the third hearing after the submission of the statements of DAA and PIO the CIC gave a ruling in the favour of the candidate and also fined the PIO for his delay.

All said and done, still the unflinching desire to hold on to the secretive operations, MPSC decided to file a writ petition in the High Court against the decision of the CIC. However in the writ petition the candidate was made the respondent by the MPSC. What is more intriguing is that the petitioner for MPSC, Mr. Ajay Tiwari has not yet appeared in the court till the filing of this report as six hearings have been postponed. The lawyer for MPSC can be congratulated for getting adjournments in this case.

In this connection, this Commission refers to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C)No. 17583/2006; U.P.S.C. -Vrs- Central Information Commission and Ors regarding accessibility of the copy of model answers to the appelant. A relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the above case is reproduced below:

The Commission also refers to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata in WP No. 22176 of 2007, Pritam Rooj -Vrs- University of Kolkata regarding question on whether answer scripts should be furnished to the examinee/candidates; in which case, the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata clearly decided that the examinees/candidate has accessed to the evaluated answer scripts under the Act and is not exempted under any of the exceptions from disclosure of section 8 of the Act.

What is clear is that MPSC is hell bent on preserving its secrecy of which even the Illuminati might be proud of. This is a one of a kind case in the region. Earlier there were similar cases against the Kolkata University and UPSC. In the case against Kolkata University the court mentioned that “...if the inspection of answer scripts is denied to the examinee, the spirit of the Constitutional right to expression and information may be lost..”. In another case registered by UPSC against the commission regarding the ruling of modal answers it was said that the disclosure would be in larger public intrest as the candidates had the right to know where they went wrong.

The question now is whether the MPSC has the right to stop the youth from improving themselves. Being a public interest organisation, can they be allowed to be non-transparent? We will have to wait and watch for the landmark judgment if passed by the Shillong Bench of Guwahati High Court which may decide the course of transparency in these examinations in the future.