EVEN IF THE CASE IS SUBJUDICE ,UPSC HAS TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION ASKED BY CANDIDATE UNDER RTI

Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000536 & 541
Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)
Date of hearing
Date of decision
:
:
2 November 2012
2 November 2012
Name of the Appellant : Dr. Sumane Arora,
Sai Krupa, # 1152, 12
th
 Main,
HAL, IInd Stage, Indira Nagar,
Bangalore – 560 008.
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 represented by Shri J.K. Arora.
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. We heard both these cases together. The father of the Appellant was
present in the Bangalore studio of the NIC. The Respondent was present in our
chamber. We heard both their submissions.
3. In two separate RTI applications, the Appellant had sought not only the
details   of   her   own  raw  and  scaled  up   marks  for   the   Civil   Services  Main
CIC/SM/A/2012/000536 & 541Examination 2006 but also such marks of the last 20 candidates invited for
interview. The CPIO had denied to disclose the information on the ground that
the information was not maintained in the form it had been sought and also
because the Supreme Court had already decided that the final marks awarded
to a  candidate would be  recognised and not the  raw marks. The Appellate
Authority had endorsed the stand taken by the CPIO.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant, citing some Supreme Court orders as
well as orders passed by the CIC, argued that the desired information should
be disclosed. On the other hand, the Respondent pointed out that not only that
such information could not be disclosed since the UPSC did not maintain such
information   but   also   because   the   Appellant   herself   had   approached   the
Karnataka High Court where the matter was now subjudice.
5. We   have   carefully   considered   the   facts   of   the   cases   as   also   the
submissions   made   during   the   hearing.   We   have   consistently   held   that   a
candidate has a right to have access to her own evaluated answer sheets, if
available. This is in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in the CBSE vs
Aditya Bandyopadhyay  case. In  line  with  that,  we  would  like  the  CPIO  to
provide the desired information in the present cases also. It is not relevant that
the matter is subjudice at present. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to
the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order her own raw marks
and scaled up marks for the Civil Services Main Examination 2006 as also the
marks of the last 20 general category candidates invited for interview without
disclosing   their   names   or   roll   numbers.   Needless   to   say,   if   the   desired
information is not available fully or partly, the CPIO shall inform the Appellant
suitably.
CIC/SM/A/2012/000536 & 5416. The cases are disposed of accordingly.
7. 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