RTI endorses application for final nod

Statesman News Service

MALDA, Oct.24: The district RTI (Right to Information) cell today endorsed an application of an information seeker to the secretary of the state Information Commission for his final judgment.

The decision was taken when the office of the district registrar refused to show answer scripts of a competitive examination for its departmental recruitment.

A Scheduled Caste candidate, who had appeared for the written examination conducted by the district registrar office for the recruitment of 14 lower division clerks, applied to the Malda RTI cell to show his corrected answer script thus challenging the panel which was made by the authorities.

On 18 September, Mr Bijoy Kumar Ram, a resident of Tulshihata in Harishchandrapur, submitted his application to see his answer script after being dissatisfied with the final panel published recently, in which his name had not featured.

The nodal officer of the Malda RTI cell forwarded the application to the office of the district registrar and asked him to show the marked answer script to the applicant.

However, the district registrar was reluctant to follow the RTI Act even for the second time, despite the approval of the officer in charge of the Malda RTI cell, Mr P C Sit.

The additional district magistrate, Mr PC Sit, was also the chairman of the selection committee of the recruitment board of 14 LDCs for the office of the district registrar, who asked the district registrar to show the answer sheets.

The nodal officer of the Malda RTI cell Mr Pratyarpan Singha Roy said: “According to the RTI Act nothing can be kept in secrecy but the district registrar had not complied with the instruction”. Mr Ram, who had expected to obtain more than 51 percent marks, alleged that the office of the district registrar did not examine his answer script ‘honestly'.

“The district registrar, as information provider, will be liable to a penalty for failing to convey information within 30 days as per the RTI Act 2005,” said a senior officer of the district administration. He added: “We will be waiting for the judgment of the State Information Commissioner”.