The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Monday, January 15, 2018.
Unfair and
irregular practices in the exam system can impede access of worthy candidates
to government jobs and facilitate the entry of the undeserving. The RTI Act has
the potential to fight such corrupt practices in the system. A sizeable number
of RTI interventions by exam-takers in the country over the last few years show
that this is becoming a reality.
A common
request for information is to ask to see the marks given by examiners on the
answer papers. The objective is to find out if any unfairness can be discerned.
Other requests include disclosure of marks and answer papers of qualifying
candidates to check if favouritism played any role. A few interventions sought
to know if government's quota policies for different underprivileged groups,
such as the disabled or disadvantaged communities, were followed.
Examination-related
RTI requests are typically submitted to public authorities administering
competitive exams. It is not known how many requests receive positive
responses. In most cases, the information sought appears to be denied. This is
clear from case-studies of complaints which more persevering candidates file
with the Information Commission (IC). The IC decisions are largely focused on
denial by authorities to the information sought, citing long-standing
institutional policy of secrecy and personal safety of the examiners.
A close look
at the complaints submitted to the IC in the last five years demonstrates that
this is one area where the RTI Act has been used by citizens more for
monitoring the work of public institutions and ensuring their transparency and
accountability, than for personal benefits.
A survey of
IC decisions from 2013, when the first such complaint was made, to the end of
2017, shows that more than 20 complaints were dealt with by the IC during the
period. A few examples will shed light on the matter. They will also reveal the
shortcomings and challenges facing the RTI regime.
The cases
involve authorities such as the Bangladesh Public Service Commission (BPSC),
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Institute of
Bankers, Bangladesh (IBB) and the Bangladesh Judicial Services Commission
(BJSC). Exam-related RTI requests have also been made, among others, to the
Primary Education Directorate and Comilla and Dhaka Education Boards.
In a
well-known case, a candidate asked the Bangladesh Public Service Commission for
marks he obtained, both in written and oral tests, in the 29th BCS examination
held in 2013. The candidate was denied the oral marks as this would violate the
Commission's policy of confidentiality and could endanger the lives of the
examiners. When it came as a complaint to the IC, the latter directed BPSC to
disclose the marks obtained for the oral exam too, since the latter is based on
an aggregate of marks given by a group of examiners and not by a specific examiner,
and hence would not endanger any of them.
The candidate
had also requested information on the qualifications of the examiner for the
Science and Technology Paper. This request was denied on the ground that it
would affect the examiner's safety. The IC, however, directed BPSC to simply
disclose the qualifications of the relevant examiner without disclosing his/her
identity.
Another
request of the candidate was for the scores, both for written and oral exams,
obtained by persons who were placed last on the lists of candidates who
qualified for appointment to such services as: foreign affairs, public
administration, police, tax and customs. The IC asked the complainant to
reapply to BPSC with a more specific description of the information sought.
Overall, it was a well-argued decision by the IC.
Sadly,
however, when the complainant reapplied, the BPSC not only refused to provide
the information but ended up challenging the IC decision at the High Court. The
latter asked the government and the Information Commission to explain why the
decision should not be declared to be of no legal effect. As neither party has
so far responded to the HC ruling or, even if they did, it has not come up for
hearing, the matter has remained unresolved. Due to this, all RTI applications
relating even to subsequent BCS examinations are routinely rejected by the
BPSC; the IC, too, refuses to entertain complaints on them.
In an
analogous complaint, related to the Institute of Bankers, Bangladesh, the IC
had similarly directed for the release of requested information. The Institute
likewise challenged the decision in the High Court. As in the earlier case, the
matter has since then remained unresolved as no party appears to have responded
to the HC ruling.
The IC
deserves credit for taking the position in favour of transparency and
disclosure. However, it is disconcerting that it has so far not defended it at
the High Court. Government support to the IC verdict will be a tremendous
encouragement for citizens and a boost for the Act. More concerted civil
society efforts are necessary to resolve the stalemate.
In a case
involving BUET, the applicant asked for copies of answer papers relating to
results of semester examinations held in 2013 and 2014. The information was
refused on grounds similar to the preceding examples. In the complaint case
that emerged, the IC once again decided in favour of disclosure. However, BUET
then claimed that the answer papers had been destroyed. As this was not
reported by BUET authorities at earlier hearings of the IC, it became a mockery
of the RTI process.
A more
hopeful case with the Bangladesh Judicial Services Commission related to a
request for information on the number of candidates appearing in the Judicial
Services examination; the gender balance; the number of physically challenged;
how many among them passed the exams and what numbers they obtained; how many
were appointed as judges, etc.
Not receiving
the information requested, the applicant filed a complaint to the IC. At the IC
hearing, the complainant explained that the basic purpose of his application
was to find out if the rights of candidates with various disabilities were
violated in the selection process. On the other hand, the representative of
BJSC argued that the information was not disclosable as they were of a
confidential nature and exempted.
In this case,
too, the IC decided that after the announcement of the results, the information
in question became public and hence disclosable. And because the quota for
persons with disability was introduced after the examinations in question were
held, IC found the inability of BJSC to provide the requested information
justified. However, being dissatisfied with the disclosure directive, the BJSC
subsequently submitted a review petition to the IC, which the latter squashed
as there was no scope for it in the RTI Act. It is not known if the information
has been subsequently released. Hopefully, the matter will not end up as a writ
petition to the HC.
Transparency
in the selection of candidates for appointment in different public services has
clearly emerged as a matter of grave concern to citizens, as revealed through
their RTI applications. It is important that the government and the Information
Commission pay due attention to such concerns and help citizens to play a
constructive role to take this most important law forward. It will benefit
citizens and the state alike.
(Shamsul Bari
and Ruhi Naz are Chairman and Project Coordinator (RTI section) respectively of
Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB).)
.JPG)
.JPG)
