Central Information Commission, New Delhi
Right to Information Act2005Under
Date of hearing
Date of decision
20 November 2012
20 November 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Rajendra Singh Rawat,
902, B K Kaul Nagar,
Hanuman vihar, Near Phed Water Tank,
Ajmer – 305 004.
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 Imran Farid, US
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was present in the Mumbai studio of the NIC while the
Respondent was present in our chamber. We heard both their submissions.
3. The Appellant had appeared in the Civil Services Preliminary
Examination 2011. He was not successful and was not allowed to take the Main
examination. It is in connection with this that he had requested the CPIO to
provide him a number of information regarding his performance. He had also
wanted the copies of the evaluated OMR sheets. The CPIO had initially refused
to provide the information on the ground that the examination process was not
complete. In response to another communication sent by the Appellant, he had
been informed that the OMR sheets for the year 2011 had been destroyed.
Later, however, the Appellate Authority had directed the CPIO to provide the
OMR sheets and, in compliance of his directions, the CPIO did provide the
copies of the OMR sheets.
4. From the copies provided to him, the Appellant found that he had
attempted many more questions in his Paper 1 than what the UPSC had
conveyed to him. He explained that the UPSC had claimed that he had
attempted only 62 questions in this paper whereas, from the OMR sheet
provided to him, it was clear that he had attempted many more questions. He
alleged that the information provided was not correct and that his Paper had not
been properly evaluated.
5. After carefully considering the facts of the case, we noted that the
desired information had since been provided to him in its entirety. There is, as
such, no further information to be disclosed. However, on the question of right
or wrong evaluation of his Paper 1, we cannot have any comment or opinion to
offer. It is for a court of law to decide, if at all. Since the OMR sheet of this
particular paper is of extremely important and critical consideration for the
Appellant, he prayed that the UPSC should preserve the original paper as he
would be approaching a court of law in this regard. The UPSC is expected to
retain such documents including the evaluated answer sheets if it is the subject
matter of any dispute before any law court or tribunal. We would expect the
UPSC to retain the original Paper 1 and not destroy it until this entire matter
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
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