BE AWARE FRIENDS,UPSC HAS STARTED GIVING NEW EXCUSE BEFORE CIC THAT CANDIDATES HAS NOT INFORMED ABOUT SECOND APPEAL ,SO WE WEEDED OUT HIS ANSWERSHEETS. SO PLEASE INFORM UPSC ABOUT YOUR SECOND APPEAL.

Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/902873, CIC/SM/A/2011/002886, 002917 &
CIC/SM/A/2011/902943
Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)
Date of hearing
Date of decision
:
:
3 September 2012
3 September 2012
Name of the Appellants : Shri Sanjeev Kumar,
1
st
 Floor, Srinivagilu Main Road,
Near Yellamma Temple, 3
rd
 Cross,
Viveknagar Post, Bengaluru.
: Ms. Shailja Thakur,
Flat No. 206, Tulip Block,
Amravati Enclave,
PO Chandimandir,
Tehsil Kalka, Distt – Panchkula,
Haryana – 134 107.
: Shri Bhinjaram,
S/o. Shri Peera Ram,
V/P Dhoru, Via Pipar Road,
Distt – Jodhpur,
Rajasthan – 342 606.
: Shri Balraj Singh,
Room No. 104, Vishakha Hostel,
BBA University,
Lucknow, UP.
Name of the Public
Authority
: CPIO, Union Public Service
Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi – 110 069.
CIC/SM/A/2011/902943Out of the four Appellants, Shri Bhinjaram and Ms. Shailja Thakur,
were present during the hearing.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:­
(i) Dr. Kulbir Singh, JD & CPIO
(ii) Shri Sachin Kumar, S.O.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda
Mishra
2. We heard all these four cases together since the subject matter of
the information sought in all these cases was, more or less, similar. Two
of the Appellants were present in the Jodhpur and Panchkula studios of
the NIC. The  remaining two did not turn up for the hearing in spite of
notice. The Respondents were present in our chamber. We heard all their
submissions.
3. All these four Appellants had sought similar information, namely,
the marks secured by them, the cut­off marks, the answer keys and the
copy of the OMR sheet, in respect of their candidature in the Civil Service
(Preliminary) Examination conducted by the UPSC in 2011. In all these
cases, the CPIO had refused to disclose any information, mainly, on the
ground that the Civil Services Examination process was not yet complete.
In one of the cases, namely, that of Sri Bhinjaram, the CPIO had also
observed   that   the   UPSC   was   still   in   the   process   of   studying   the
implications of the Supreme Court judgement in the CBSE case before it
could decide to disclose the copies of the evaluated OMR sheets.
CIC/SM/A/2011/9029434. During the hearing, the two Appellants who appeared submitted
that, in the meanwhile, they had received most of the information from the
UPSC except the copies of the evaluated OMR sheets. They objected to
the fact that the information was not provided earlier when they had asked
for it and was sent so much delayed and only after the hearing notice for
the second appeal was sent. They also objected to the fact that the UPSC
had, in the meanwhile, weeded out the evaluated answer sheets and they
contended   that,   since   their   second   appeal   was   still   pending,   the
examination records should not have been destroyed.
5. The Respondent  submitted that the UPSC  had been taking the
position  earlier that the  evaluated OMR  sheet  and  such  other  details
about the Civil Service (Preliminary) Examination would not be disclosed
until the entire Civil Services Examination process was over as it was
considered that disclosure of such information would affect the integrity of
the examination process. However, he also submitted that following the
directives   of   the   CIC   later,   the   UPSC   had   been   disclosing   such
information of late. In the present cases, he pointed out that the CPIO had
acted on the position taken by the UPSC at that time and there was no
mala fide on his part in not disclosing the desired information.  He further
submitted that, on his own, the CPIO had provided the desired information
to each of the Appellants except for the OMR sheets, since destroyed.
6. After   carefully   considering   the   facts   of   the   case   and   the
submissions made before us, we are of the view that the UPSC should
CIC/SM/A/2011/902943retain the evaluated answer/OMR sheets of such candidates for at least
one year who have approached it for the copies under the RTI. Since the
entire  appellate  process takes time,  it  would  be  unfair to  destroy the
original  records  before  the  CIC  passes  its  final  orders.  Although  the
Respondents pointed out that, many times, the information seekers did
not keep the CPIO informed about their having preferred a second appeal
before   the   CIC   and,   in   the   absence  of   such   knowledge,   the   UPSC
assumed that the information seeker was satisfied with the decision of the
Appellate Authority and, hence, did not think it necessary to  retain the
records. Even if there is some merit in the contention of the Respondents,
we would still think that the UPSC should retain the original examination
records in respect of the information seekers for a reasonable period, not
less   than   one   year   at   least,   before   deciding   to   destroy   those   in
accordance with the record retention schedule.
7. We also direct the CPIO to verify the examination records to find
out  if,   by  chance,  the  OMR  sheets  of  these  four  Appellants  are  still
available. If these are traced, the CPIO is directed to send copies of those
to the respective Appellants. If the OMR sheets have been destroyed and
are   no   longer   available,   the   CPIO   shall   forward   whatever   related
information is still available in the UPSC database  regarding the OMR
sheets  besides  also  indicating  to  each  one  of them the  exact marks
he/she had secured in this examination. The CPIO is directed to do so
within 10 working days of receiving this order.
8. The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
CIC/SM/A/2011/9029439. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
eputy Registrar

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File Nos.CIC/SM/A/2012/000081, 1417, 1418 & 1419
Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)
Date of hearing
Date of decision
:
:
5 October 2012
5 October 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Partha Mandal,
C/o. Chittaranjan Kumar,
3/35, First Floor, Roop Nagar,
Delhi – 110 007.
Name of the Public Authority   : CPIO, Union Public Service Commission,
(Sangh Lok Seva Ayog), Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi – 110 069.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:­
(i) Dr. Kulbir Singh, JD & CPIO
(ii) Shri N.P. Singh, Assistant
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. All   the   parties   were   present   during   the   hearing   and   made   their
submissions.
3. The Appellant  submitted at the  outset that  in addition to the present
second appeal, he had filed three others exactly on the same subject and he
would like the CIC to club all the four cases together and pass a single order.
We think that this is a very just and fair request and, therefore, we would like to
CIC/SM/A/2012/000081pass an order covering all the four cases.
4. In all his RTI applications, he has sought similar information concerning
the Civil Services Main examination from 2006 to 2011. The desired information
concerns the evaluated answer sheets containing both the raw and the scaled
up marks after moderation. In all these cases, the CPIO had refused to disclose
the information on one or the other ground. The Appellate Authority had, by and
large, endorsed the denial of information by the CPIO.
5. During the  hearing, the Appellant  strongly  objected to the  continued
denial of such information by the UPSC. He pointed out that the UPSC had
been employing a well coordinated tactics to  refuse such information to the
information seekers, first by denying the information on the ground that the
examination process was not yet over, secondly by stating that the desired
information  was  exempt  under  one  or   the   other  provision  of   the   Right  to
Information (RTI) Act and finally, on the ground that the desired information had
already   been   destroyed   as   per   the   record   retention   schedule.   He   further
submitted that he and some others had approached the High Court against the
UPSC in such matters and that the High Court had very clearly held that the
raw marks as well as the scaled up marks must be disclosed. In spite of that, he
submitted, the CPIO recently informed him that the evaluated answer sheets
had since been weeded out and that no such information was any longer in
existence. We, however, would like the CPIO to verify the records once again
and to find out if the desired information or at least part of it is still available
anywhere   in   the   UPSC   and,   if   it   is   found,   he   shall   provide   the   desired
information to the Appellant within 15 working days of receiving this order. In
case,   after   renewed   search,   the   desired   records   are   not   found   to   be   in
CIC/SM/A/2012/000081existence, he shall inform the Appellant suitably.
6. The Respondents reiterated the response of the CPIO on the weeding
out of the  relevant  records. Since the Appellant and many others had been
contesting cases in the Supreme Court and various High Courts, it is unusual
for the UPSC to weed out the relevant records. However, if the public authority
does not any longer possess the relevant records, there is no way those can be
produced. This brings us to a very peculiar situation. After a long battle for
seeking such information, the Appellant and probably many others come to a
situation where the information they have all along been seeking is no longer in
existence. In order to avoid such a situation, at least in those cases where RTI
applications have been filed before the UPSC, the records pertaining to those
information  seekers  should  be  retained  till   the  entire  Appellant  process  is
complete even if it would mean exceeding the period prescribed in the retention
schedule.   We   would   like   the   CPIO   to   place   our   observations   before   the
competent authority in the Commission to pass appropriate instructions to all
concerned in this regard.
7. All the four second appeals are disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
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.
CIC/SM/A/2012/000081(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/002907
Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)
Date of hearing
Date of decision
:
:
5 September 2012
5 September 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kumar,
R/o. Flat No. 36, Railway Trasit Camp,
State Entry Road, New Delhi – 110 055.
Name of the Public Authority   : CPIO, Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi – 110 069.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:­
(i) Dr. Kulbir Singh, JD & CPIO
(ii) Shri Imran FArida, US (CS)
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant did not turn up for the hearing in spite of notice.   The
Respondents were present in our chamber.  We heard their submissions.
3. The   Appellant   had  wanted  to   get   the   photocopies  of   his   evaluated
answer sheets both in the Optional as well as in General Studies paper for the
Civil Services (Mains) Examination 2010.   He had also wanted to know how
many answer sheets he had used in his subject as also the photocopies of the
CIC/SM/A/2011/002907Attendance Sheet showing the issue of additional answer sheets to him.
4. In his reply, the CPIO had observed that the UPSC was in the process of
studying the Supreme Court Order dated 9 August 2011 directing the disclosure
of evaluated sheets and that further information on this would be provided in
due course.   However, in regard to the remaining information, the CPIO had
observed that the information regarding the number of answer sheets used by
the Appellant need not be given as he himself was the one who used the
additional books and should know about that.   The Appellate Authority had,
while endorsing part of the decision of the CPIO, had also directed him to give a
more categorical reply.  Following this, the CPIO wrote to the Appellant with the
observation that the desired information could not be given since it was exempt
under the  provisions  of Sub­Section  1(d)  of the Section  8  of the  Right to
Information Act.
5. After carefully considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that
the desired information should be provided, if available.  We also do not agree
that the information is covered under any of the exemption provisions, much
less the provisions of Section 8(1)(d).  Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide
to the Appellant within 10 working days  of  receiving this order the  certified
photocopy of the evaluated answer sheets, if available, and also the photocopy
of any document which would show the issue of answer sheets to the Appellant
during the Examination.   Needless to say, if the said document contains the
details of other candidates, all those should be properly masked or deleted
before disclosing it to the Appellant.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
CIC/SM/A/2011/0029077. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar

=======================================================================

Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000618
Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)
Date of hearing
Date of decision
:
:
2 November 2012
2 November 2012
Name of the Appellant : Ms. Madhulika Kumari,
D/o. Shri Manohar Ram,
R/o. H/I­235, Harmu Housing Colony,
District – Ranchi, Jharkhand.
Name of the Public Authority   : CPIO, Union Public Services
Commission,
(Sang Lok Seva Ayog), Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi – 110 069.
The Appellant was present along with Shri S. Gupta.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:­
(i) Dr. Kulbir Singh, JD & CPIO
(ii) Shri Imran Farid, US
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was present in the Ranchi studio of the NIC along with her
representative. The Respondent was present in our chamber. We heard their
submissions.
3. The Appellant  had  appeared  in the  Civil Services Main Examination
2009  conducted  by the UPSC. She  had  not been  invited for the interview.
CIC/SM/A/2012/000618Therefore, she had taken up the matter with the UPSC and had requested for
her marks. It seems the marks had been provided to her. Thereafter, through
an RTI application, she had requested the CPIO for permission to inspect her
original evaluated answer sheets. The CPIO had refused to allow inspection by
citing an order of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Education vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Seth & another.
The Appellate Authority had, while endorsing the response of the CPIO directed
him to provide her with a copy of the retention schedule followed in the UPSC.
4. After  hearing  both  the  parties,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the  desired
information should be disclosed, if available. Since the Appellant had preferred
a   complaint   before   filing   the   RTI   application,   it   is   quite   possible  that   her
evaluated answer sheets are still available. We direct the CPIO to provide her
with the certified copies of the evaluated answer sheets as desired by her within
10 working days of receiving this order.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar