CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000218 dated 26-2-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Manish Sharma
Respondent: Union Public Services Commission (UPSC)
Decision announced : 12.4.2010
FACTS
By an application of 17-9-2008 Shri Manish Sharma of Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi applied to the CPIO, UPSC seeking the following information:
“1) Please inform about the marks obtained by candidate
Roll No. 005697, in the recruitment test for the post of
57 posts (later reduced to 44). Ay. Physician /MD (Ay)/R.
O. (Ay) (Ref. No. F.1/91/2004-R.1/S.P. C. F.1/346/2004-
R1/S.P.C.,F.1/139/2005 .1/SPC, .1/122/2005-R.1/SPC
F.1/187/2005/R.1/SPC);Recruitment test held on 11th
December, 2005.
2. Also informed about the marks obtained by the last
candidate selected in recruitment test (referred above) in General,
SC,ST & OBC category (cut off marks).
3. One question was asked wrong/ misprinted in the
question paper of the recruitment test held on 11th December of Ay.
M.O. (Referred above) i.e. Q. No. ‘120’ of Booklet Code ‘C’. What
were the criteria adopted to consider, its marks. Does it considered as
wrong as not.
4. Why the result of recruitment test of the above said posts
(Ay. No.) came so. As late i.e. after 2 ½ years, approx kindly explain.
5. There is nowhere any display board showing timings
(working hours, lunch time etc) of UPSC near Facilitation/ reception
counter in UPSC building. Why Please inform.”
To this Shri Manish Sharma received a response from CPIO Shri
Jaswant Singh DS, UPSC dated 15-10-08 informing him as follows:
(i) “For item No. 1 and 2:
This information cannot be shared as the selection process for
recommending suitable candidates is in progress.
(ii) For item No. 3:
There is nothing wrong with the printed question no. 120 in
booklet ‘C’.
(iii) For item no. 4:
After the final disposal of the court case by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India on 21.2.2008 the result of written part of
Combined Recruitment Test was declared on 29.8.2008.
(iii) For item no. 5:
1
The Commission’s normal office hour are from 9.30 AM to 6.00
PM and timing of Facilitation & Dak counter is 10.00 AM to 5.00
PM for candidates. Lunch hours is observed from 1.00 PM to
1.30 PM.”
Aggrieved with this response Shri Manish Sharma made an appeal
before the JS (R) UPSC specifically with regard to question Nos. 1, 2 and 5 as
follows:
“A) Regarding item No. 1 and 2: I have asked about the
marks obtained by a candidate in written Test
(Recruitment test). The candidate is not successful/ has
not qualified the recruitment test. So there must not be
any problem (technical or either) in telling him his marks
as it does not affect the Selection procedure.
Also, a selection process must be fair and transparent &
hiding the candidate marks in written paper does not
serve any purpose & this is reiterated by various courts &
Supreme Court also.
B) Regarding item No. 5: I wanted to know the reason
behind not displaying the board showing timings of
UPSC, near facilitation courts & reception and not about
the timings. Although normal lunch hours are between 1
PM to 1.30 PM but practically it is observed between 1-2
PM by the employees at reception & facilitation courts.
And, not displaying the board having written timings
empowers them to do so or hide the truth from public. It
cause great inconvenience to those who took short leave
from this private jobs, offices/ factories to submit their
form etc & to disabled persons.”
Upon this Ms. Kalpana Rajsinghot JS, UPSC decided as follows as per
her order of 21-11-08:
“During the pendency of the recruitment process for the
aforesaid posts, marks obtained by Roll No. 005697 or minimum
qualifying marks in the Recruitment Test held in this case cannot
be disclosed. The CPIO has rightly refused to disclose this
information.
As regards item no. 5, it is an interrogatory question seeking
views/ reasons and as such does not fall under the definition of
‘information’ under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However,
the CPIO has already provided sufficient information on this
point. Further, the Board displayed at Felicitation/ Dak Counter
does display the office timings including lunch timings.”
2
Shri Manish Sharma has then approached this Commission in second
appeal with the following prayer:
“1. My marks should be disclosed to me as soon as
possible.
2. The cut off marks of general and OBC, SC, ST
category are also disclosed if possible.”
The appeal was heard on 12-4-2010. The following are present.
Appellant:
Mr. Manish Sharma
Respondents
Ms. G.G. Shabong, JS, RI, UPSC
Mr. N. Mukherjee, US,
Mr. Jaswant Singh, DS
Mr. Ashok Kumar, DS
Mr. Dharam Pal, SO
Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate
Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocate
Learned counsel for respondents Shri Naresh Kaushik submitted that
the UPSC does not disclose marks up to 24 months after the examination
during which period the reserve panel is still alive. In this context, he also
cited the order of this Commission in File No. CIC/ /MA/2006/00622 Rajnish
Singh Chaudhary vs. UPSC of 15-12-2006. In that case our decision was as
follows:
“In view of the aforesaid, this Commission directs the Union
Public Service Commission to disclose to the appellant within 10
working days, the cut-off marks as applicable after the expiry of
time duration of the reserve panel, which by now stands expired,
and also disclose the composition of the Selection Board,
without revealing individual identities of the Members, which
interviewed the aspirants for Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner Examination, 2002.”
Nevertheless, on reconsideration of the issue and in response to the
appeal notice received from this Commission, UPSC has disclosed marks
obtained by Shri Manish Sharma by letter of 22-3-2010 free of charge.
Appellant Shri Manish Sharma said that he has indeed received the
information sought against point (1) of his appeal after he had submitted the
appeal to this Commission. Nevertheless, he submitted that he had suffered
irreparable loss in consequence of the late receipt. In support of this
3
argument Shri Manish Sharma submitted a copy of a decision of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench Delhi of 11-2-2009 in O.A. No.
326/2009 Dr. Manish Sharma Vs. UPSC & Ors. In the final two paragraphs
of this order learned CAT Chairman Shri V.K. Bali and Member (A) Shri N.D.
Dayal have come to the following conclusion:
“4.
We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and
with his assistance perused the material on record. All
that is being urged before us is that it is not known in
what manner question referred to above was treated and
how the examiner had given marks for the said question
and perhaps if the applicant would have got the marks
against the said question he would have succeeded and
may have been selected.
5. We find no merit whatsoever in the only contention raised
by the learned counsel for applicant.1 The question referred to above
was common to all the candidates. We are sanguine that the marks
allocated to a candidate for whatever option they may have given
would have been the same in view of the fact that all the options were
correct. The question may only of one marks. Original application has
no merits and is accordingly dismissed.’
Appellant Shri Manish Sharma’s contention is that had he been able to
show the papers, which showed shortage of only one mark in terms of marks
obtained by him he would have obtained a favourable decision from CAT.
DECISION NOTICE
We cannot agree that marks obtained by a particular candidate who
has, moreover, not qualified for the examination should be refused for a
period of at least 24 months till the reserve panel remains alive. Since these
marks are not changeable such secrecy could only facilitate tampering in a
manner undetectable by any public scrutiny. Nevertheless, the information
sought by appellant Shri Manish Sharma has, as per his own admission, now
been given to him free of charge. On the question of cut off marks, however,
the issue concerns the issue of disclosures of cut off marks which is the
subject of UPSC SLP (Civil) No.23250/2008 before the Supreme Court, in
the context of UPSC exams, which has been pleased to issue the stay order
on our decision in appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00793 Shiv Shambhu Vs.
UPSC in which we had ordered disclosure of cut off marks.
1
Underlined by us for emphasis
4
On the only remaining issue i.e. the question of whether appellant Shri
Manish Sharma qualifies for compensation on account of loss or detriment
suffered u/s 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, it will be seen in the context of the
decision of CAT relied upon by appellant Shri Manish Sharma himself that as
underlined by us, they have held that CAT finds “no merit whatsoever ” in the
only contention raised by learned counsel for appellant, which clearly implies
that there is no room for supposing that disclosure of the original marks
obtained would have brought a different ruling from CAT. Under the
circumstances this appeal is now without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
12-4-2010
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
12-4-2010
5
