SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CAG vs K.S.JAGANNATHAN SAID THAT THE WRIT JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT IS VERY WIDE , EVEN IF ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE TO PETITIONERS ,BUT THAT IS LESS CONVINIENT, LESS EFFECTIVE AND LESS BENEFICIAL,THEN INSPITE OF THAT ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AVAILABLE PETITIONER CAN APPROCH WRIT JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT.

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, 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."

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

  43
  W.P. (C) 218/2011


  ANGESH KUMAR AND ORS .....
  Petitioners
  Through Mr. Yakesh Anand with
  Mr. Murari Kumar, Advocate


versus


  UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
  AND ANR .....
  Respondents
  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
   13.01.2011

  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
  2006 examination:


  ?(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
  in 2011.

  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
  2007).

  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
  judgment.

  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,
  UPSC:
  ?(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
  documents.
  (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
  Studies.
  (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
  Act?).


  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
  from today.

  11. No further directions are called for in this petition and it is disposed of
  as such.



  12. Order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.



  S. MURALIDHAR,
   J.
  JANUARY 13, 2011
  rk
  Writ Petition (Civil) No. 218/2011 Page 1 of 6