Friday, 29 June 2012


Times of India- Mumbai Edition

HC refuses to direct UPSC to retain 4L answersheets of 2011
Rosy Sequeira TNN 

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Friday said it cannot issue a blanket direction to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to retain around 4 lakh answersheets of the 2011 examinations. The results were declaredon May17.

    A division bench of Justice Sharad Bobde and Justice Mridula Bhatkar was hearing a PIL filed by Prachi Pampattiwar and Prashant Chakkarwar, urging for such a direction to the UPSC as the answersheets will be destroyed on July 2. According to UPSC’s record retention schedule, answersheets are destroyed after 45 days of the declaration of results,exceptfor pending court/penalty/complaintcases.

    The petition said many candidateswhowanttochallenge irregularities in the 2011 exams before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had filed applications under the RighttoInformation (RTI)Actto gettheir answersheets.But the UPSC refused to comply, claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act applicable to information regarding commercial/trade secrets or intellectual property which will harm competitive position of a third party. “Irregularities and non-transparency in the recruitment process have resultedin thedenialof appointments...Withoutthe answersheets, candidates will not be able to approach the CAT as they will nothaveevidencetosupporttheir grievances,” said their advocateNigelQuraishy.

    The judges observed the tribunal has wide powers to exerciseitsjurisdiction andthisissuecouldhavebeen presented before it. They also questioned the delay in moving the high court. “The candidates are students from across the country, including rural areas,” said Quraishy. Justice Bobde said, “Even minors, people of unsound mind and women approach the court. The students could have approached lawyers.” The judges issued notices to the UPSC andtheCentre and adjournedthe matter for twoweeks. 

Wednesday, 13 June 2012

TWO SELF CONTRADICTORY STANDS TAKEN BY UPSC regarding status of RAW MARKS -- in one document it says that RAW MAKS are written with red ink and moderated marks are written in blue ink ,while in another document it says on affidavit that during the irreversible process of moderation the raw marks are overwritten multiple times , hence they doesn't remain. WHAT BETTER PROOF GOVT NEEDS ABOUT THE FRAUD THAN THIS.IF,EVEN AFTER THIS NO ACTION IS TAKEN BY GOVT OR JUDICIARY ,THEN ONLY GOD CAN SAVE INDIA.

In one document to Syed Shabbir Ali , before Central Information Commission,  it is said that, on persual of his answersheet ,it was seen that raw marks were written in red ink and moderated marks were written in blue ink stated in totality and moderated marks were not moderated question-wise.

While in another document given  on affidavit ,on direction of CIC, UPSC says that during the irreversible moderation process, raw marks are overwritten multiple times.(i.e, they are not written separately ).and hence, they doesn't remain.

Documents of Syed Shabbir Ali:-

Affidavit of UPSC saying that during irreversible process of moderation raw marks are overwritten multiple times . Hence doesn't remain.

Sunday, 10 June 2012

MISSION EXPOSE FRAUD IN CSM-2011-- Legal punches to UPSC.

Friends ,
 as part of strategy to expose fraud in CSM-2011 by UPSC, many of our victim Friend's have filed court cases in various High Courts to secure and safeguard their answersheets . Dear Friends , if u want to get benefit of this battle , then try to secure answersheets of all candidates of CSM-2011, till the final decision by courts  on the  deliberate confusion created by UPSC by denying answersheets under section 8(1)(d) of RTI act, 2005 (Inspite of clear cut decision of Hon,ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay)
 . Actually , their gameplan is to destroy answersheets by 2/3 july 2012, so that your main documents will be destroyed and then you will never able to prove that you secured more marks.{for any legal help you can contact Shri.Manish PARASHAR- 09253187965}



  W.P.(C) 3407/2012 and C.M.7219/2012

  NAVIN KUMAR NAVIN and ORS ..... Petitioner

  Through: Me. Pankaj Kumar, Adv.


  UPSC ..... Respondent

  Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv.



 O R D E R


  Notice. Mr. Naresh Kaushik accepts notice on behalf of the

  Counter affidavit be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder be filed
  before the next date.

  Until further orders, it is directed that the answer books/answer
  sheets pertaining to cases where the Court cases are initiated, shall not
  be destroyed until all legal proceedings upto the highest level have been
  concluded, and for a period of 60 days thereafter.

  List on 05.11.2012.


  MAY 30, 2012




MANISH PARASHAR ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sudhir Vats, Advocate.



Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent No. 1/UPSC.

Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, CGSC for the respondent No. 2.





Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 accept

Counter-affidavit be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if
any, be filed before the next date.

Until further orders, the respondent No. 1 shall maintain the
documents sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act.
In all other cases where information is sought from the respondent under
the RTI Act, the information/document sought should be preserved till the
final conclusion of the proceedings in respect thereof.

Adjourned to 06.07.2012.


JUNE 01, 2012


HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT BOMBAY  order in case of Ashish Kumar Karn:-

WRIT PETITION  NO.  5467 OF  2012
Ashish Kumar  Karn ... Petitioner
Union  Public  Service  Commission &  Anr.  ...Respondents
Mr. Abhijeet  Joshi  a/w  Mr.  D.B. Deshmukh  for the Petitioner
Mr. S.G.  Thakur  i/b  Mr. V. S.  Masurkar for Respondent No.1
Mr.  V. S.  Gokhale,  AGP  for  Respondent No.2 
         CORAM :  S.A. BOBDE  AND 
DATE     :  25
  June, 2012
P. C. :
. Mr. Thakur,   learned Counsel for   Respondent  No.1 seeks   two
weeks’  time to file  affidavit­in­reply.  The same  is granted.  In  the
meanwhile,  Respondent is directed  not to destroy  the Petitioner’s  all
answer  books.   
2. Stand Over  to  9
  July, 2012.

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT interim relief in case of Pawan Bansal:-

HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH order in case of Saurabh Tyagi:-


Thursday, 7 June 2012


A.P. Information Commission
(under Right To Information Act, 2005)
HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad – 500 004.
Phone Nos: 23230245/246 (O), 23230591/92 (F)
Appeal No:12618/CIC/2009,
Order dated 19-08-2011
: Sri Kadiyam Sekhar Babu, H.No.15-1-
183, 1st Line, Nehru Nagar, Macherla 522
426, Guntur District
Respondents : 1) The Addl. Secretary/Public Information
Officer(U/RTI Act, 2005), A.P. Public
Service Commission, "Prathibha Bhavan",
M.J.Road, Opp: Gagan Vihar, Nampally,
Hyderabad 500103.
2) The Secretary, Appellate Authority
(U/RTI Act, 2005), A.P. Public Service
Commission, "Prathibha Bhavan",
M.J.Road, Opp: Gagan Vihar, Nampally,
Hyderabad 500103.
Sri Kadiyam Sekhar Babu, H.No.15-1-183, 1st Line, Nehru Nagar, Macherla 522
426, Guntur District has filed 2nd appeal dated 04.12.2009 which was received by this
Commission on 17.12.2009 for not getting the information sought by him from the PIO and
appellate authority/ A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad.
The brief facts of the case as per the appeal and other records received along with it
are that the appellant herein filed an application dated 02.09.2009 before the PIO seeking
the following information :
Photocopies of his answer sheets relating to Group-1 Mains Exam held in August
Since the appellant did not receive information from PIO, he filed 1st appeal dated
14.10.2009 before the appellate authority requesting to furnish the information.
The PIO/Addl. Secretary, APPSC through Memo No.646/RT-II/2/2009 dated
27.10.2009 informed the appellant that his request is rejected as it is not possible to give
copies of his answer sheets as per Central Information Commission order in Complaint
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred 2nd appeal before this Commission requesting
to arrange to furnish the information and to impose penalty U/s 20(1) of the Act.
Subsequently, the appellant has filed application dated 31.03.2010 which was
received by this Commission on 09.04.2010 stating that if the order passed by the CIC,
APIC on 28.01.2010 in Appeal No.4192/CIC/2009 filed by Dr. L. Srinivas Vs NTR Health
University is applicable to APPSC also, he requested to dispose of his appeal by taking it
as covered matter and pass orders directing the APPSC to furnish photo copies of his
answer sheets.
After examining the material papers available on record, the appeal was taken on
file and notices were sent to the parties concerned directing them to appear before this
Commission for hearing on 15.06.2011.
The Prl. Secretary & appellate authority, APPSC through letter No.661/RTII/
2/2011 dt.24.05.2011 informed that through memo dt.27.10.2009 the appellant was
informed that his request is not feasible in view of the orders of CIC, New Delhi and the
Hon’ble APIC in Appeal No.1079/CIC/2007 dt.30.06.2008 gave a judgment stating that the
decision of the CIC in respect of UPPSC, this Commission holds that the same decision has
to be applied to the APPSC. The appellate authority further requested to exempt him from
personal appearance.
On 15.06.2011 the case was called. The appellant was absent. The
respondent/Addl. Secretary & PIO, APPSC was present. The appellate authority through
letter dated 24.05.2011 requested for exemption from personal appearance. The same was
The respondent informed that the request of the appellant was rejected basing on
the decision of CIC, New Delhi, which was upheld by the Hon’ble APIC in Case
No.1079/CIC/2007 dt. 30.06.2008 and the same is applicable to APPSC also.
The appellant filed written submissions dated 5.6.2010 requesting to arrange to
furnish copies of his answer sheets.
This Commission on perusing the material on record and upon hearing the
respondent is of the considered view that the contention of the respondent is not sustainable
in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011
dated 09.08.2011 in Central Board of Secondary Education & Another Vs Aditya
Bandopadhyay and others wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus –
At para 25. An evaluated answer book of an examinee is a combination of two
different ‘informations’. The first is the answers written by the examinee and second is the
marks/assessment by the examiner. When an examinee seeks inspection of his evaluated
answer-books or seeks a certified copy of the evaluated answer-book, the information
sought by him is not really the answers he has written in the answer-books (which he
already knows), nor the total marks assigned for the answers (which has been declared).
What he really seeks is the information relating to the break-up of marks, that is, the
specific marks assigned to each of his answers. When an examinee seeks ‘information’ by
inspection/certified copies of his answer-books, he knows the contents thereof being the
author thereof. When an examinee is permitted to examine an answer-book or obtain a
certified copy, the examining body is not really giving him some information which is held
by it in trust or confidence, but is only giving him an opportunity to read what he had
written at the time of examination or to have a copy of his answers. Therefore, in
furnishing the copy of an answer-book, there is no question of breach of confidentiality,
privacy, secrecy or trust. The real issue therefore is not in regard to the answer-book but in
regard to the marks awarded on evaluation of the answer-book. Even here the total marks
given to the examinee in regard to his answer-book are already declared and known to the
examinee. What the examinee actually wants to know is the break-up of marks given to
him, that is how many marks were given by the examiner to each of his answers so that he
can assess how is performance has been evaluated and whether the evaluation is proper as
per his hopes and expectations. Therefore, the test for finding out whether the information
is exempted or not, is not in regard to the answer book but in regard to the evaluation by
the examiner.
At para 26. This takes us to the crucial issue of evaluation by the examiner. The
examining body engages or employs hundreds of examiners to do the evaluation of
thousands of answer books. The question is whether the information relating to the
‘evaluation’ (that is assigning of marks) is held by the examining body in a fiduciary
relationship. The examining bodies contend that even if fiduciary relationship does not
exist with reference to the examinee, it exists with reference to the examiner who evaluates
the answer-books. On a careful examination we find that this contention has no merit. The
examining body entrusts the answer-books to an examiner for evaluation and pays the
examiner for his expert service. The work of evaluation and marking the answer-book is an
assignment given by the examining body to the examiner which he discharges for a
consideration. Sometimes, an examiner may assess answer-books, in the course of his
employment, as a part of his duties without any specific or special remuneration. In other
words the examining body is the ‘principal’ and the examiner is the agent entrusted with
the work, that is, evaluation of answerbooks. Therefore, the examining body is not in the
position of a fiduciary with reference to the examiner. On the other hand, when an answerbook
is entrusted to the examiner for the purpose of evaluation, for the period the answerbook
is in his custody and to the extent of the discharge of his functions relating to
evaluation, the examiner is in the position of a fiduciary with reference to the examining
body and he is barred from disclosing the contents of the answer-book or the result of
evaluation of the answer-book to anyone other than the examining body. Once the
examiner has evaluated the answer books, he ceases to have any interest in the evaluation
done by him. He does not have any copy-right or proprietary right, or confidentiality right
in regard to the evaluation. Therefore it cannot be said that the examining body holds the
evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship, qua the examiner.
At para 27. We, therefore, hold that an examining body does not hold the
evaluated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an
examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption under section 8(1)(e) is not
available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer-books. As no other
exemption under section 8 is available in respect of evaluated answer books, the examining
bodies will have to permit inspection sought by the examinees.
In view of the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited
supra, this Commission having considered the facts and circumstances of the instant case,
being similar in nature and therefore, the ratio can well be extended to the facts of the
present case and as such the appellant herein is also entitled to seek photo copies of answer
sheets from the respondents.
This Commission, therefore, directs the respondents to furnish certified copies of
the answer sheets sought by the appellant free of cost, within 30 days from the date of
receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission.
With the above direction, this appeal is closed.
Jannat Husain
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated by:
(Maha Prakash)
Deputy Registrar
Copy to: DS / SO / OC / SF

No.2, Thiyagaraya Salai, Eldams Road Junction, Adjacent to Aalayamman
Temple, Teynampet, Chennai – 600018.
Telephone: 24357580
Case No.51844/B/Enquiry/2011
Date of Enquiry: 7/02/2012 (Chennai)
Present: Thiru. (Dr) R. Perumalsamy
State Information Commissioner.
Petitioner: Tmt. T. Geetha,
17/67. I Floor.
Swamynathapuram. Kanniyakumari.
Public Authority: The Public Information Officer,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
No.1 Greams Road, Chennai-6.
The Petitioner Tmt. T. Geetha was represented by her Advocate Thiru V.
Purushothaman and the Public Authority was represented by the Public
Information Officer Tmt. R. Geetha, Under Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission, Chennai 6 for today's enquiry.
The Petitioner sent a petition dated 27.09.2011addressed to the Public
Information Officer, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai - 6 under
section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to furnish the copies of the main
written examination answer sheets along with the marks awarded by the
examiners with Register No. 603611 for the TNPSC Group 1 Services Main
Examination (2000-01) The Public Information Officer, sent a reply dated
21.10.2011 to the petitioner by Speed post on 30.11.2011. Not satisfied with
the reply given by the Public Information Officer, the Petitioner filed the first
appeal u/s 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Appellate Authority
on 8.11.2011 and the 2nd appeal to the Commission on 19.12.2011. On the basis
of the petitioner’s 2nd appeal to Commission, the case was taken up for enquiry
on 7.2.2012.
During the enquiry the Public Information Officer has stated that since the
case is being heard in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the answer sheets for the
year 2000-2001 cannot be given. The Public Information Officer has relied upon
Section 8(1)(b) according to which there shall be no obligation to give any citizen
information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any Court of
law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court. But
the Public Information Officer has not furnished a copy of the Court Order in this
regard. The Public Information Officer has also not furnished even the case
number pending in the Supreme Court. In the absence of such details, the
contention of the Public Information Officer is not agreeable. Further it is
pertinent to point out that the provisions of the Right to Information Act will
prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws / rules of the examining bodies. The
petitioner contended that she is not a party in the said case stated to be pending
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Now the issue before the Commission is to consider whether the
exemption under section 8(1)(e) is applicable in this case. In relation to existence
of 8(1)(e), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Central Board of
Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others" has
given a ruling that the exemption under section 8(1)(e) will not operate a bar for
the very person who wrote the answer book, seeking inspection or disclosure of
it. Based on the above ruling and also the petitioner is not a party in the said
case stated to have been pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
Commission orders as follows:
The Public Information Officer is directed to furnish the copies of Answer
Sheets along with the marks to the petitioner at free of cost within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of this order and report to the Commission.
State Information Commission
Orders approved on this the 17 th day of
March 2012
Under the orders of the Commission
Assistant Registrar
Case No.51844/B/Enquiry/2011
Tmt. T. Geetha,
17/67. I Floor.
Swamynathapuram. Kanniyakumari.
Case No.51844/B/Enquiry/2011
The Public Information Officer,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
No.1 Greams Road, Chennai-6.
Copy to FOC/Judgment File/Scan

Friday, 1 June 2012

Possible arguments by UPSC's counsel in writ petition demanding answersheet

Dear Friends,
  Now we will discuss the possible arguments of UPSC's Counsel . Friends we will get the short idea about their arguments from the arguments done by first appellate authority,UPSC, while denying answersheets and the arguments done by UPSC's counsel in High Court of Delhi in similar cases.:-

  • one such reply of Shri. Partha Mandal, is given here for reference:-

Following are the broad areas of arguments:-
1. petitioner didn't followed the complete RTI process and directly came to High Court.
2. as it is services matter petitiner should approch the Central Administrative Tribunal.
3. Aditya Bandopadhyay case is regarding CBSE and not UPSC.
4.Supreme Court has rejected denial of answersheet under section 8(1)(e) and not on section 8(1)(d)
5..Raw marks are present on answersheet , so, if we give answersheet under RTI act 2005, raw marks would be disclosed to the candidates, so answersheet can't be given.
6. we are applying for exemption from Aditya Bandopadhyay  decision.
7.Recent Delhi High Court judgment in CBSE vs KATHPAL said that  marks given by examiner can not be given under RTI act, 2005.
8.if we provide answersheets , it will create situation that 75 % of staff will be involved in it ,displacing other important work of commission.
9. evaluated answersheets have remarks of examiner on it ,so ,it may endanger their security , so, it can't be given under section 8(1)(g) of RTI act ,2005.


1.Hon,ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 218/2011 of High Court of Delhi:- in point 7 says that "This Court finds that with the law having been settled by this Court, as
  affirmed by the Supreme Court, there is no need to relegate the Petitioners to
  the process under the RTI Act. Such a course will needlessly delay matters."

so, there is no need to follow complete RTI procedure ,in case where law has been settled by Supreme court.
 Even, according to Record Retention schedule , our answersheets are going to be destroyed  six month from conclusion of examination or 45 days from display of marksheet on commission's website, i.e. 2nd july 2012, by the time our reply is received our answersheets will be destroyed, so, we can't wait for normal RTI procedure.

2. First of all ,we didn't got service,so ,it can't be service matter. But, it  is RTI matter, so, we approched High Court and not Central Administrative Tribunal.

3.Assam Public Service Commission was one of the party in attached case to Aditya Bandopadhyay, so, this decision is also applicable to UPSC.

4 & 9. Supreme Court has elaborately discussed  section 8 (1)(e) , as in point no 14 of said decision Hon'ble Apex Court says that,
               14. The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer-books are
exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as they are
‘information’ held in its fiduciary relationship. They fairly conceded that
evaluated answer-books will not fall under any other exemptions in subsection (1) of section 8. Every examinee will have the right to access his
evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or take certified copies
thereof, unless the evaluated answer-books are found to be exempted under
section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. 

and in point no 27 said that,

              27. We, therefore, hold that an examining body does not hold the
evaluated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information
available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption
under section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference
to evaluated answer-books. As no other exemption under section 8 is
available in respect of evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will
have to permit inspection sought by the examinees.

From collective reading of both points ,it is clear that no exemption under section 8 ,is available regarding evaluated answersheet, Hon'ble Apex Court have only elaborately discussed section 8 (1)(e), as examination bodies has denied it on same ground prior to bandopadhay decision quoting 23/4/2007 order of
Hon'ble Central Information Commission, which also UPSC used to quote prior to bandopadhyay decision (for this refer documents in DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR WRIT PETITION OF ANSWERSHEET POST), so, supreme court has elaborately discussed only section 8 (1)(e) ,and in point 27 ,it has also rejected other grounds ,including section 8(1)(d) and section 8(1)(g).

5.when in Aditya Bandopadhyay case ,supreme court said that candidate have right to get their EVALUATED ANSWERSHEET under RTI act, it was implied in it that evaluated answersheet contains raw marks of candidate, so, now ,when, when Hon'ble Apex Court says examining bodies have to give evaluated answersheet under RTI, it itself imply that raw marks has to be given. so, whether to disclose raw marks or not is redundunt issue now.

6.if UPSC's Counsel says that, they are asking for exemption from above decision, then we can say that ,they should approch Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court have no power to give exemption to any law held by Supreme court.

7.If they quote the recent High Court of Delhi judgment in CBSE vs KATHPAL , which says that marks given by examiner can not be given under RTI act.
    We will differentiate our case from CBSE vs KATHAPL case by saying that ,the said decision was on GRADING SYSTEM and in our case UPSC apply the RANKING SYSTEM, so the said decision is not applicable to us.

AND, most importantly, it is High Court decision , and we are asking our right based on supreme court decision.

8.If they say that if they provide answersheet under RTI act, then 75% of commission's staff will be busy in such non-productive work.
  Here we will quote Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in ICAI vs Shaunak Satya , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court says that additional workload can't be defence for denial of information.

That the Hon’ble Apex Court in ICAI versus Shaunak H. Satya [2011 (8) SCC 781] has held that, “Examining bodies like ICAI should change their old mindsets and tune them to the new regime of disclosure of maximum information. Public authorities should realize that in an era of transparency, previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place. Accountability and prevention of corruption is possible only trough transparency. Attaining transparency no doubt would involve additional work with reference to maintaining records and furnishing information. Parliament has enacted the RTI Act providing access to information, after great debate and deliberations by the civil society and Parliament. In its wisdom, parliament has chosen to exempt only certain categories of information from disclosure and certain organizations from the applicability of the Act, as the examining bodies have not been exempted, and as the examination processes of the examining bodies have not been exempted, the examining bodies will have to gear themselves to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. Additional workload is not a defence. If there are practical insurmountable difficulties, it is open to the examining bodies to bring them to the notice of the government for consideration so that any changes to the Act can be deliberated upon”.
So, they can deny information by taking recourse to only section 
8 , of RTI act, which is rejected in case of answersheet by 
supreme court in Aditya Bandopadhyay decision.
If, they have any problem, they should ask govt to bring amendment to present RTI act, 2005. Till that time they don't have anyother option other than to give evaluated answersheet under RTI act,2005.