CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00348 dated 30-3-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Vivek Tripathi, Jhabua (MP)
Respondent: Union Public Service Commission, (UPSC)
FACTS
By an application of 20-11-06 Shri Vivek Tripathi of Jhabua, M.P.
applied to the CPIO, UPSC, New Delhi seeking the following information:
1. My marks in English paper.
2. The marks given to me in each question on English paper.
3. List of cut off marks for qualification in Civil Service Main Exam
2005 in English paper of all the candidates including myself, so
if there is any discrepancy I can know.
4. What is the procedure for fixing cut off marks?
5. Whether my other answer books have been inspected other
then of compulsory subjects.
6. Please show me my answer sheet of English paper.
To this he received a reply on 8-12-06 as follows:
“1. The candidates are not shown the marks obtained by him
in qualifying papers because there is no public interest
involved.
2. The Commission does not show the marks obtained in
each question by him in qualifying papers because there
is no public interest involved.
3. &4. The procedure for fixing cut off mark is not informed by
the Commission because it will affect the confidentiality of
examination procedure and no public interest involved in
it.
5. Only Essay, General Studies and Optional Subject
papers of those candidates are being examined by the
Commission for which the Commission has fixed the
minimum qualifying marks. In this connection please
refer the note (ii) (Planning of examination), Part-II, B of
annexure-I of Main examination Gazette No.
13018/8/2004-A IS (i) dated 4.12.2004.
6. It is not possible to show your answer sheet because
there is no public interest involved.”
Not satisfied with this reply Shri Tripathi moved his first appeal to the 1st
Appellate Authority on 23-12-06, upon which he received the following order
from Shri Biresh Kumar, Addl. Secretary, UPSC.
1
“The appellant had wanted information on six points through his
request dated 20.11.06. The CPIO has given point-wise
categorical and reasoned reply. As regards information relating
to point No. 1 & 2, it is clear that they pertain to personal
information which has no relationship to any public activity or
interest and they are covered u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Further,
it is not possible for the Commission to show the answer book of
English paper of the appellant of Civil Services (Main)
Examination 2005 because in an appeal No. ICPB/A-2/CIC/2006
dated 6.2.06 in respect of Ms. Teresa Irish, the Hon’ble Central
Information Commission have held that when a candidate seeks
for a copy of the evaluated answer papers, either or his/ her on
or others, it is purely personal information, the disclosures of
which has no relation to any public interest or activity and this
was found to have been covered u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Apart from this, in respect of point No. 3, 4 & 5 also, the CPIO
has given a reasoned reply which does not warrant any kind of
intervention at this level.”
The appeal was heard through Videoconference on 21-8-2008. The
following are present.
Appellants at NIC Studio, Raisen, MP
Shri Vivek Tripathi.
Respondents at NIC Studio, New Delhi.
Shri Prachish Khanna, Dy. Secretary & CPIO, UPSC.
Shri Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for UPSC.
Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Advocate
Shri A. K. Khanna, Dy. Secretary, UPSC.
Shri Naresh Kaushik, Learned Counsel for UPSC submitted that in
keeping with subsequent decisions of this Commission on a question of
disclosure this decision had been reviewed and the information sought
supplied to appellant Shri Vivek Tripathi through a letter of CPIO Shri
Prachish Khanna dated 2-7-08 informing appellant Shri Tripathi as follows:
“In reply to point 1 of your application requesting for marks
obtained by you in English (Compulsory) qualifying paper you
were informed that the marks obtained by candidates in
qualifying papers are not communicated as no public interest is
served thereby.
In this regard, it is stated that the Commission has since decided
to disclose the marks obtained by the candidates in qualifying
papers. Accordingly, it is intimated that you have obtained 59
marks out of 300 marks of English (Compulsory) paper.”
2
Appellant Shri Tripathi acknowledged that he had indeed received this
response but the information provided was incomplete since he was not
provided the answers to question Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6.
Learned Counsel Naresh Kaushik submitted that the UPSC does not
maintain question-wise marks but has provided the marks, the record of which
is being maintained by the Public Authority. So far as questions 3 and 4 are
concerned these are requests for cut-off marks on which decision of this
Commission for disclosure is under stay in LPA No. 313 of 2007. On the
question of answer sheets learned Counsel cited the decision of this
Commission in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/1041 Amit Gulia vs. UPSC in
which we have directed as follows:
We have heard the arguments and examined the records. It is
agreed that the appellant simply wishes to satisfy himself that
the answer sheets assigned to him by the UPSC are in fact his
answer sheets. These answer sheets are apparently held in a
sealed cover by the UPSC. The UPSC would be ready to
submit these answer sheets for perusal by us to satisfy
ourselves that these are indeed authentic.
Because both parties have since agreed to this means of
disposal of the application of Shri Amit Kumar, we agree that
both parties may appear before us on 15th Oct., 2007 at 5.30
p.m. with the requisite documents for our inspection of the
answer papers in order to come to the requisite conclusion.
Subsequently, these answer sheets were examined in a hearing of
25.1.’07 and the appellant’s request satisfied
DECISION NOTICE
From the above discussion it will be clear that information as held by
the UPSC and not stayed from disclosure under the High Court of Delhi’s stay
order in LPA No. 313 of 2007 has been disclosed. On the question at serial
No.6 we have examined our decision in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/1041 in
the case of Amit Gulia vs. UPSC. Our decision above drew down from an
earlier decision of the full Bench of this Commission in complaint
No.CIC/WB/C/2006/00223, Appeal Nos.CIC/WB/A/2006/00469 & 00394 &
3
Appeal Nos.CIC/OK/A/2006/00226; 00058; 00066 & 00315. Para 39 of this
Decision Notice reads as follows:
“39. In regard to public examinations conducted by institutions
established by the Constitution like UPSC 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.”
We see no reason to interfere with this decision in the present case.
Appellant Shri Vivek Tripathi is advised that if there are further questions
arising from the answers that he has received from CPIO, UPSC he is free to
move a fresh RTI application before the UPSC to obtain such information.
However, on the question of cut-off marks he will have to await the decision of
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the above cited writ petition, a decision on
which is expected to be announced on 3rd November, 2008.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Announced in the hearing, save
the decision regarding question 6 , which was announced in open chamber on
22.8.’08 after studying the decision of this Commission in Appeal No.
CIC/WB/A/2006/1041 relied upon by respondent
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
21-8-2008
4
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
21-8-2008
5