IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 12473 of 2009(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS AND THE STATE PUBILC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-12. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. T.B. HOOD. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. K. HARIDAS, KALATHIL VEEDU, KANNADI, KANNADI.P.O, PALAKKAD - 678 701. 2. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNAN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY MR.M.AJAY, S.C, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 15743 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.12473/2009-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 15/05/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16/05/2008 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 10/07/2008 FILED BY THE R.1. WITH THE COVERING LETTER OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTING APPEAL TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/09/2008 SENT TO THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION FILED BY THE R.1. UNDER SECTION 19 (3) DTD. 20/09/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 19/11/2008 SENT BY THE R.2. TO THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 28/11/2008 SUBMITTED BY 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE R.2. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT AS PER G.O.(MS).257/2006/G. EDN. DTD. 11/10/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).12473/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT The 1st respondent herein filed an application before the Public Information Officer attached to the office of the Commissioner of Government Examinations seeking information regarding the marks obtained by his daughter in each individual paper given by her in the SSLC – Regular (New Scheme) held from 12.3.2008 to 27.3.2008. It may be noted that the method of valuation for SSLC had been stipulated as award of a grading system from the year 2007 and the candidate had obtained 'A+' Grade for eight subjects and 'A' Grade in one of the subjects. By Ext.P2 reply dated 16.5.2008, the applicant was informed that if the candidate is prosecuting further studies in the CBSE/ICSE school or any other State, then the actual marks would be intimated to the institution concerned, if any application is made in that behalf. Referring to G.O(M.S.)No.257/06 produced as Ext.P9 in the writ petition, it was contended that the certificates issued to the examinee show the grade alone and there is no provision for mentioning the individual marks in such W.P.(C).12473/09 2 certificates. An appeal was preferred before the appellate authority. It seems that the appeal was not favourably considered and thereafter, the applicant had approached the State Information Commission who had, by Ext.P8 order, held that disclosure of the information sought for is not prohibited under any provisions of the Act and therefore, the marks scored by Miss.Remya Haridas for each subject in the SSLC examination shall be provided to the applicant within seven days from the date of receipt of the order. Ext.P8 has been challenged in the writ petition. 2. I heard learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the State Information Commission. No counter affidavit as such has been filed on behalf of the Commission or the individual applicant. 3. Learned Government Pleader relies on Ext.P9 Government Order which was made applicable to the SSLC examination for the year 2007 onwards. The certificates awarded to the individual examinees now contain only the W.P.(C).12473/09 3 grades since a Grading system has been introduced. I find force in the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that a system has been brought into place by the Government and it applies to more than four and a half lakh examinees. There are cases where instead of individual marks, grades are awarded to the examinees. That is an adequate and functional system for assessing the merits of the examinees or the candidates, as the case may be. This information was supplied by the competent authority attached to the office of the Commissioner for Examinations. The information given was in consonance with the general procedure that has been brought into existence by the Government, as evidenced by Ext.P8 order. The further information sought for namely, the details of the individual marks has also to be supplied provided it was necessary for prosecuting further studies outside the State or in CBSE/ICSE Schools. In such cases, information would be supplied, to the institution concerned, as per the procedure laid down in Ext.P8. W.P.(C).12473/09 4 4. There is no non-disclosure or failure to disclose the relevant information on the part of the Department. If that be so, it is difficult to understand as to why an interference at the hands of the State Information Commission was necessary in the present case. I am of the view that the order passed by the State Information Commission, Ext.P8, is unsustainable. Ext.P8 is therefore, quashed. Writ petition is allowed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs