We can use this decision/case law if High Court ask us to follow normal RTI procedure/ ask us to approch Central Information Commission for our demand of answersheet and raw marks, then we can quote this decision wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court says on page no 5, that the writ jurisdiction of High Court is wide enough, even if the alternative remedy is available , if that is less convinient, less effective, less beneficial ,then petitioner can approch High Court by evoking its writ jurisdiction.(previously, we have taken help of Delhi High Court decision wherein it is said that if the law is finally settled by Hon'ble Supreme Cout, then there is no need to follow normal RTI procedure as it will endlessly delay the matter. But, as it is High Court decision, it is not binding on other high court, in such case we can take help of abovementioned decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
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, asaffirmed 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."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) 218/2011
ANGESH KUMAR AND ORS .....
Through Mr. Yakesh Anand with
Mr. Murari Kumar, Advocate
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
AND ANR .....
Through Mr. Naresh Kaushik with
Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocate for R-1/UPSC.
Mr. B.V. Niren, Advocate for UOI.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
O R D E R
CM APPL No. 394/2011
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
WP (Civil) No. 218/2011
1. This writ petition has been filed by twelve Petitioners who were unsuccessful
in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010 (?Prelims 2010?) seeking a
direction to Respondent No. 1, Union Public Service Commission (?UPSC?), to
disclose the details of marks (raw and scaled) obtained by them and the
successful candidates in the said examination.
2. Earlier, the UPSC had filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23250 of 2008
challenging the decision dated 17th April 2007 of the learned Single Judge of
this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 17583 of 2006 (UPSC v. Central
Information Commission) and the judgment dated 3rd September 2008 passed by the
Division Bench in LPA No. 313 of 2007 (UPSC v. Shiv Shambu) which upheld the
decision of the Central Information Commission (?CIC?) in which the following
directions were issued in relation to the candidates who sat for the Prelims
?(i) The UPSC shall, within two weeks from the date of this order,
disclose the marks assigned to each of the Applicants for the Civil Services
Preliminary Examination 2006 in General Studies and in Option Papers; and
(ii) The UPSC, within two weeks from the date of this order, shall also
disclose the cut-off marks fixed in respect of the General Studies paper and in
respect of each of the Option Papers and if no such cut-off marks are there, it
shall disclose the subject-wise marks assigned to short-listed candidates; and
(iii) The UPSC shall examine and consider under Section 8 (1) (d) of the
RTI Act the disclosure of the scaling system as it involves larger public
interest in providing a level playing field for all aspirants and shall place
the matter before the Competent Authority within one month from the date of this
order. This will also cover the issue of disclosure of model answers, which we
recommend should in any case be made public from time to time. In doing so, it
shall duty take into account the provisions of Section 9 of the RTI Act.?
3. The above SLP has since been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18th November
2010 in view of the statement by the UPSC before that Court that the UPSC had
decided to adopt a changed format for the Civil Services Examination to be held
4. Meanwhile, the Petitioners herein filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6939 of
2010 in this Court seeking directions to the UPSC to disclose, inter alia, the
details of marks (raw and scaled) awarded to them in the Prelims 2010. In view
of the stay granted by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 23250 of 2008, the
said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 8th October 2010. Thereafter,
the Petitioners challenged the said order dated 8th October 2010 before the
Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 32443 of 2010, which was disposed of on 3rd
December 2010 by the following order:
?The issue raised in this SLP was earlier decided by the Delhi High Court
against the Respondent, the Union Public Service Commission (vide judgment and
order dated 17th April 2007 passed by a single Judge of the Delhi High Court in
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 17583 of 2006 and affirmed by the Division Bench of
the High Court by judgment and order dated 3rd September 2008 in LPA No. 313 of
In the case of the Petitioners the Delhi High Court refrained from passing any
order observing that the Union Public Service Commission had filed SLP (C) No.
23250 of 2008 against its order dated 3rd September 2008 in LPA No. 313 of 2007
and in that SLP this Court had granted stay against the operation of its
During the pendency of the earlier case [SLP (C) No. 23250 of 2008) the UPSC
changed the format of its examination for the Central Services. Hence, when the
earlier SLP came for hearing this Court dismissed it observing that there was no
need for any adjudication by this Court in the matter since the UPSC had changed
the pattern of its examination.
That being the position the order passed by the Delhi High Court in the earlier
case holds the field and the case of the present Petitioner will also be
governed by that order.
This SLP is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.?
5. Consequent to the above order, the present writ petition has been filed for a
direction to the UPSC to disclose to the Petitioners the following information
sought by them in a letter dated 21st December 2010 addressed to the Chairman,
?(1) Copy of the cut-off marks list for optional subjects and General studies.
(2) Separate cut-off marks for every subject and for General study by different
categories such as General, OBC, SC and ST including copies of relevant
(3) Details of the marks (raw and scaled) awarded to the following candidates in
the Civil Services (Prelims) Examination 2010.
(4) The model answers solution for each series of every subject and General
(5) Sealing methodology applied to scale the raw marks of every subject.
(6) The complete result of all qualified candidates of Civil Services (Prelims)
Examination 2010 with their roll number, raw and scales marks.?
6. Appearing on advance notice for the UPSC, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel
first submitted that the said letter dated 21st December 2010 has been addressed
to the Chairman, UPSC and not to its Central Public Information Officer
(?CPIO?). This Court rejects the said objection as being highly technical. The
said letter addressed by the Petitioners to the Chairman, UPSC shall be treated
by the UPSC as an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (?RTI
7. Mr. Kaushik then submitted that the Petitioners ought to first approach the
CPIO who would then proceed to deal with it in light of the judgments of this
Court. 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.
8. Mr. Kaushik stated that with reference to the information at Serial No. 3,
while the scaled marks awarded to the Petitioners in the Prelims 2010 would be
disclosed, the raw marks were not available and therefore, could not be
disclosed. As regards the information at Serial No. 4, he submitted that model
answers were available only for some of the questions. As regards, the
information sought at Serial No. 6, i.e., the complete result of all the
qualified candidates, he submitted that this did not form part of the queries
raised earlier for the Prelims 2006.
9. The above submissions have been considered. This Court is of the view that if
the raw marks are not available with the UPSC, they need not be disclosed to the
Petitioners. As regards the results of the qualified candidates, no prejudice
whatsoever would be caused to any of those qualified candidates or to the UPSC
if the complete results of the qualified candidates with their roll numbers are
disclosed. Further, it would be in public interest to do so. Consequently, there
is no merit in the objection raised by learned counsel for the UPSC in this
regard. As regards the information sought at Serial No. 4 (regarding model
answers), this aspect already stands covered by the earlier judgments of this
Court. Obviously, only those model answers as are available with the UPSC need
be disclosed to the Petitioners.
10. Consequently, the said letter dated 21st December, 2010 of the Petitioners
will now be processed by the UPSC in light of the judgments of this Court, and
the information sought will be provided to the Petitioners within fifteen days
11. No further directions are called for in this petition and it is disposed of
12. Order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.
JANUARY 13, 2011
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 218/2011 Page 1 of 6