Justification for a change in the answer key

For the post of AHO Gr B under the Medical Dept of East Coast Railway Bhubaneswar, certain examination was done. The appellant submitted the representation towards Question No. 97, as the first answer key published the right answer was given option C and the revised answer key mentioned the right answer as option A. The appellant requested to provide a copy proof which justifies the answer A is correct and what is the existing practice in East Coast Railway for stores and works matters. The CIC observed that the reply provided by the Respondent is not satisfactory as the Respondent has not provided the documentary proof to the Appellant. The CIC directed the PIO-cum-Additional Chief Medical Director to provide documentary proof to the Appellant within two weeks.

Comments

The PIO is sometimes faced with a dilemma whether providing a “justification” amounts to creating an information and whether the same is covered under the definition of “information” as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. This case law should be read along with Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act which reads, ‘provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.’

Citation: Kumar Swet Kamal v. Office of the Principal Chief Medical Director, Rail Sadan, Bhubaneswar, CIC/ECRBH/A/2023/652155; Date of Decision: 06.03.2025

Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com