CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000337/SG/13705
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000337/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: : Mr. Kishan Chand;
Divisional Forest Officer,
Soil Conservation Forest Divi&un,
Lansdown-Pauri. Uttarakhand
Respondent: : Ms. Pushpa Bisht
Under Secretary and PIO
UPSC, Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069
RTI application: 23/07/2010
PIO reply: 16/08/2010
First appeal 04/09/2010
FAA order 20/10/2010
Second appeal 26/11/2010
Information sought:
(i). List sent by UPSC of IFS Examination, 1984. The total list of candidate who were interviewed,
showing the marks and ranks also.
PIO’s reply:
A copy each of the written result (Roll No.wise) as well as final result (In order of merit) of Indian Forest
Service Examination, 1984 are enclosed herewith as Annexure-l and Annexure-Il. Regarding the marks
secured by these candidates, it is stated that this comes in the realm of personal information of third party
and disclosure will not serve any public activity or interest and disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)
(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds for First appeal:
Denial of information unjustified. The appellant also sought additional information.
FAA order:
3. I note that the appellant in his original RTI application sought the following information from the
CPIO, UPSC pertaining to IFS Examination, 1984:-
“(i). List sent by UPSC of IFS Examination, 1984. The total list of candidate who were interviewed,
showing the marks and ranks also.
In his appeal, the Appellant has stated that all of the above information has not been provided to her by
the CPIO, UPSC.
3.1. With regard to information sought by the appellant in Para 3 (i) above, I note that the CPIO, UPSC in
his reply denied to provide the information sought by the appellant in his original RTI application as the
same was treated as personal information under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the disclosure of
which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. I also note that in denying the information, the
reason cited by the CPIO, UPSC is appropriate and in conformity with this Commission’s decision in such
matters. I further note that the appellant in his appeal has sought information on community of the
candidates, which being a new query, can’t be taken up at appeal stage. Therefore, I don’t find any cogent
grounds to intercede on behalf of appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Kishan Chand on video conference from NIC-Haridwar Studio;
Respondent: Ms. Pushpa Bisht, Under Secretary and PIO;
The appellant has sought ranks of all the candidates who had appeared in interview the PIO has
stated that the ranks are given only to the recommended candidates and not to those who are not
recommended. The PIO had initially refused to give the information claiming exemption under Section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The disclosure of ranks or marks of any candidates in a public exam cannot be
considered as an invasion on the privacy of an individual though it is personal information. The
Commission therefore does not uphold the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j). However, since the
information on the ranks on the recommended candidates is not available, it cannot be provided.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
28 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SG)