CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000978 dated 9.12.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Chittaranjan Kumar
Respondent - Union Public Service Commission
Heard & decision announced: 28.5.2010
Facts
:
By an application of 26.6.09, Shri Chittaranjan Kumar of Vijay Nagar, Delhi
applied to the CPIO, UPSC seeking the following information:
“1. I may kindly be provided a photo copy of my attendance
sheet for Civil Services Main Examination, 2008.2. I may kindly be provided photo copies of my attendance sheet,
on which serial number of answer sheets also stands
recorded for all subjects.3. I may be given in writing serial numbers of main answer sheets
and additional answer sheets used by me for all subjects.4. I may be provided photo copies of main page of my all answer
sheets for all subjects.”To this, Shri Chittaranjan Kumar received a response pointwise dated
22.7.09 from CPIO Shri Prachish Khanna, informing him as follows:“(i) Photocopy of your attendance-sheet for Civil Services (Main)
Examination, 2008 is enclosed.(ii) Sheet on which attendance during Civil Services (Main)
Examination, and serial number of answer book is mentioned is not
available as the same has been destroyed/ weeded out being beyond the
prescribed Record Retention period.(iii) Details regarding serial number of Main Answer Book and
Additional Answer books/ sheets used in various papers of Civil Services
(Main) Examination, 2008 are as under: –S. No. Subject Sl. No. of Main Sl. No. of answer book Additional Answer sheet. 1. Essay 3020801 No. Addl. Answer sheet is used. 2. General studies-I 3147216 1433910 3. General Studies-II 3177527 Two graph sheets used and no addl. 1 Answer sheet is used. 4. English 3129811 No. Addl. Answer (Compulsory) sheet is used. 5. Indian Language 3040993 Two special sheets (Compulsory_ for précis. 6. History-I 3171702 155360 7. History-II 3145168 172432 and 1426613 8. Hindi Literature-I 3184863 1080810 and 1670052 9. Hindi Literature-II 3031811 146690 and 1869854However, it may be appreciated that culling out the above
information required physical examining of the answer books which
was diverted the already scare resources of Commission and may
not be taken as precedence.(iv) As regards point (4), the photocopy of answer book cannot
be given to the candidate. This issue has been deliberated
in detail by the CIC and it has been held by CIC (Ref.CIC/OK/A/2006/00058/00066/00315 and
CIC/WB/A/006/00469 & 00394 dated 23.6.2007 that in the
case of, inter alia examinations conducted by UPSC which
have an established system as fool proof as that can be, a
citizen cannot seek disclosure of evaluated answer sheets
under the RTI Act, 2005. This has been reiterated
subsequently in other decisions also. Besides, disclosure of
first page of the answer book would reveal the identities of
evaluators and concerned officials through their signatures
and handwriting. Hence, this information cannot be
disclosed.’Aggrieved, however, Shri Chittaranjan Kumar moved an appeal before
Shri K.S. Bariar on 19.8.09, submitting, “there was not any photocopy sent by the
Commission.” He has concluded his appeal with the following plea:“I just want to (know that) there was no alteration in coding and
decoding. So sir you (are free to) cover the identities of evaluators
and concerned official signature and marks also then furnished the
photocopy of main page of my answer book.”Upon this, Shri K. S. Bariar Joint Secretary (E) in a detailed order of
8.10.09 has directed as follows:2
“With regard to appellant’s complaint for non-receipt of photo copy
of Attendance-sheet for the CS (Main) Examination, 2008 along
with the aforesaid reply of the CPIO, UPSC, I direct hereby the
CPIO, UPSC to send a copy of the same to him (the appellant)
within 15 days of issue of this order.With regard to appellant’s plea in respect of Para 2 (ii) of the
CPIO’s reply for providing him the copy of the sheet on which
attendance during the CS (Main) Examination and serial number of
answer book is mentioned, it is stated that as already intimated by
the CPIO, UPSC the above requested document has since been
destroyed/ weeded out due to it being beyond the prescribed
Record Retention period. Since a document that no longer exists in
the record of the Commission, it cannot be provided.With regard to appellant’s plea in respect of Para 2 (iii) (S. No. 6, 8
& 9) of the CPIO’s reply, it is intimated that the appellant in his
original RTI Application has sought for serial no. of main answer
books and additional answer books used by him in the History
Paper-1 of the CS (Main) Examination, 2008. Due to this reason
the fact regarding additional map used by him in the above paper
was not mentioned in the reply of the CPIO, UPSC. Now, it has
been confirmed by the CPIO, UPSC that the map as used by the
appellant in the above paper is intact and attached to main answer
book and has been duly seen by the examiner.It has further been confirmed by the CPIO, UPSC that the appellant
in both Hindi Literature Paper- 1 & 11 of the above examination, the
appellant has used 1 answer book and 2 additional answer book
(and not 3 additional answer books as claimed by him in the instant
appeal). All five questions attempted by the candidate in the above
said papers as well as History paper-1, has been evaluated by the
concerned examiners and all the answer books used by him are
intact.With regard to appellant’s plea to provide him the photocopy of his
answer books of the above examination, it is intimated that the
reply given by the CPIO, UPSC is factual and appropriate and there
is nothing that requires to be interceded to at the appellate state in
the matter.”The appeal was thus allowed only to the limited extent of supply of
information said to have been missed out. Appellant Shri Chittaranjan Kumar has
moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer :3
“1. I may kindly be provided photo copies of my attendance
sheet, on which serial number of answer sheets also
stands recorded for all subjects.2. I may be provided photocopies of main page of my all
answer sheets for all subjects.3. Action be taken against concerned officers for providing
wrong information.”The case was listed for hearing on 30.4.10. However, the CPIO UPSC
requested an adjournment through a letter of 27.4.10 since the appeal notice had
been received by him only on that date. Although an adjournment was in fact
given for 28.5.10, because appellant could not be contacted, we have
subsequently received an undated representation from appellant pleading “Since
UPSC is depriving me of my legal rights by providing false information, I may
kindly be provided an early hearing to protect my legal rights, for which I will
remain highly obliged.” The appeal was then heard on 28.5.10. The following are
present:Appellant
Shri Chittaranjan Kumar
Shri Prashant Kumar Sahi
Shri Pramod Kumar
Respondents
Shri Prachish Khanna, Dy. Secy. & CPIO
Shri D. P. Arora, Consultant
Shri Naresh Kaushik, Advocate
Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Advocate
Shri Aditya Vikram, AdvocateThe following were also present as observers:
Shri Ravindra Mohan Sharma
Shri Ashish Gupta
Shri Sachin
Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh
Shri Pramod Kumar
Shri Guddu
Learned Counsel for respondents, Shri Naresh Kaushik, presented a
written statement on behalf of respondents. Shri Chittaranjan Kumar in his
written statement of 18.5.10 to the PIO, UPSC has submitted, as follows:4
“The High Court in its decision in the case “Sanjay Singh vs. UPSC
has quoted a book, written by Shri Edwin Harper, which has been
referred to by the UPSC. I may kindly be provided a copy of the
same.”Appellant was willing to forgo his request to be shown his original answer
sheets in line with the decision of this Commission in Complaint No.
CIC/WB/C2006/00223; Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 ;Appeal
Nos. CIC/OK/A/2006/00266/00058/00066/00315 Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh &
Ors vs. Central Board of Secondary Education, & Ors, the thrust of
appellant’s argument is, however, a plea that he should be provided the
attendance sheet that he had asked for. In this case this Commission in its
Decision of 23.4.’07, which still stands, has held as follows:39. In regard to public examinations conducted by institutions
established by the Constitution like UPSC1 or institutions
established by any enactment by the Parliament or Rules made
there under like CBSE, Staff Selection Commission, Universities.,
etc, the function of which is mainly to conduct examinations and
which have an established system as fool-proof as that can be,
and which, by their own rules or regulations prohibit disclosure of
evaluated answer sheets or where the disclosure of evaluated
answer sheets would result in rendering the system unworkable in
practice and on the basis of the rationale followed by the Supreme
Court in the above two cases, we would like to put at rest the
matter of disclosure of answer sheets. We therefore decide that in
such cases, a citizen cannot seek disclosure of the evaluated
answer sheets under the RTI Act, 2005.
But the thrust of appellant’s argument is, however, a plea that he should
be provided the attendance sheet that he had asked for. Learned Counsel Shri
Naresh Kaushik in his written statement, on the other hand, has, argued along
the line that he has reiterated in the hearing, as follows:
“It is pertinent to point out here that there are two types of
attendance sheets:-
1. Attendance sheet on which Sl. No. of answer book and
signature of the candidate is recorded called proforma ‘F’ in the
commission is specific to a session of examination for all candidates the
retention period for this type of attendance sheet is six months.
1
Emphasised by us in relevance to present appeal
5
2. The attendance sheet on which each candidate puts his/ her
signature on each session on the day of examination is specific for the
candidate. The retention period of this type of attendance sheet is two
years.
That the appellant had sought information with respect to the type
(1) and Shri Pramod Kumar had sought the information regarding
type (2), therefore, the appellant’s claim that wrong information was
supplied to him is not only baseless but also vexatious in its spirit
and is aimed at maligning this examination conducting body.
That the appellant has intentionally, deceitfully and fraudulently not
annexed the letter of the UPSC, which clarifies the aforementioned
position, vide its letter 13.11.2009. That this fact alone exposés
appellant’s malicious intent entirely, that how the appellant is bent
upon maligning the UPSC, and how he seeks to misdirect the court
into believing something which is not true and which is within his
knowledge.”
The letter of 13.11.09 referred to above, CPIO Shri Prachish Khanna was
in compliance with the orders of the Appellate Authority informing appellant Shri
Chittaranjan Kumar, as follows:
“it is to inform you that there are two types of attendance sheets.
While attendance sheet (1) on which Sl. No. of answer book and
signature of the candidate is recorded (called Proforma ‘F’ in
Commission) is specific to a session of examination for all
candidates, the attendance sheet (2) on which each candidate put
his / her signature on each session on the day of examination is
specific to the candidate. While the retention period of attendance
sheet (1) is 6 months, the retention period of attendance sheet (2)
is 2 years. A copy of your attendance sheet has again been sent to
you vide letter of even number dated 21.10.09.”
In this context, learned Counsel Shri Naresh Kaushik has in his written
statement submitted as below:
“I note that the CPIO, UPSC in his submissions (comments) to the
undersigned has stated that in the Civil Services (Main)
examination, there are two types of attendance sheet each having
its own and distinct retention period.
From the above submissions and clarifications of the CPIO, UPSC,
it is evident that no wrong information with regard to appellant’s
above RTI application has been given by him. Since the appellant6
may not be aware of exact nomenclature (Proforma ‘F’) and
difference between these different documents (Attendance sheet/
list) and may be misconstruing and relating the information
(supplied to him) with that given to the above stated other applicant
by the CPIO, UPSC, in the inters of clarity and transparency of the
information, however, I observe that it would be appropriate on
party of the CPIO, UPSC that the above facts are also clarified and
conveyed to him.
I, therefore, direct the CPIO, UPSC to supply a self-explanatory
information (with retention period of each of the above documents)
to the appellant within 15 days of issue of this order.
He has then gone on to quote from the order of 13.11.’09 and annexed the
true copy of the appellate authority’s order dated 9th November, 2009 This also
clearly lays down the retention period for such documents, as asked for,
contending that such information as is held by respondents has, therefore, been
provided to appellant Shri Chittaranjan Kumar, which is why, according to
respondents his representations are frivolous.
DECISION NOTICE
Having heard the arguments of both parties and examined the records, we
must come to the conclusion that as mandated by Sec. 2(j), such documents, as
held by respondents UPSC and permissible for disclosure, have indeed been
provided to Appellant Shri Chittaranjan Kumar. On the question of disclosure of
answer sheets, appellant Shri Chittaranjan Kumar has clarified that what he was
keen to know was the details of the attendance registers to make sure that the
attendance had been in fact marked truthfully. Wee must therefore conclude that
there remains no substance in the appeal
On the other hand, we cannot accept the accusation of respondents that
the application of appellant Shri Chittaranjan Kumar is deceitful and fraudulent. It
can indeed be a matter of satisfaction for respondents that in all cases, where the
Commission has intervened to inspect records to determine their authenticity,
7
when petitioners had questioned the same, the authenticity has invariably been
established but, to retain that public confidence in this apex institution it is also
necessary that such authenticity remain under close public scrutiny in order to
ensure that it always retains the highest levels of veracity. Young persons like
the appellant in the present case, the principal clients of the UPSC thus must
exercise their right to question whenever in doubt in matters that concerns their
own future in the service of the nation. This is no cause for concern but instead
an opportunity to demonstrate the integrity of the institutional framework. While,
therefore, the appeal, being without substance, is dismissed, the above
observations may be noted by the respondents whose very name is assertive of
service to the public.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
28.5.2010
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
28.5.2010
8