FIRST TIME IN HISTORY UPSC HAS PROVIDED ANSWERSHEET OF CSP-2011, AND EVEN IN THAT THEIR FRAUD HAS BEEN CAUGHT.

The CSP-2011 candidate Rajendra Rawat  has been informed by UPSC that he has  scored 1.34 marks (out of 200) in papre-I of CSP-2011 . But, according to ANSWERSHEET(OMR SHEET) and ANSWER KEY provided  by UPSC , he has actually scored 72.67.{ in paper -II  he was informed correct score .i.e.
157.50. so his actual total score comes out to be 231 marks (out of 400) and cut off for his OBC category as informed by UPSC was 175. still he was disqualified in CSP -2011.}

ANSWERSHEETS(OMR SHEET) AND ANSWER-KEYS PROVIDED BY UPSC UNDER RTI ARE GIVEN BELOW:-

FOR MORE DETAILS OF FRAUD GOING ON IN UPSC VISIT FOLLOWING GOOGLE DOCUMENTS:- https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3Alege3ImJNUnFic2lPY2NUZ2s/edit

SUPPORT OUR CAUSE BY SIGNING FOLLOWING PETITION WHICH WILL BE SENT TO ALL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT:-http://www.change.org/petitions/irregularities-in-the-indian-civil-services-examination

THOSE FRIENDS WHO HAVE SOME CONTACT WITH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT CAN ASK THEM TO RAISE FOLLOWING QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT:-

Questions to be asked to Minister of Personnel , Public Grievances and Pensions in Parliament of India in context of UPSC’s functioning

Answers of following specific questions is demanded with all the relevant documents—

1-What is the stand of Minister and UPSC head with respect to increased litigation against the institution on transparency & accountability in its Civil Services Examination? Are not they concerned and taking some meaningful corrective actions in the interest of credibility of institution in public-perception?

2-What steps minister and UPSC head has taken to comply with the RTI Act and Public Record Act,passed by this Parliament ,in letter and spirit?

3-Is it correct that under current chairman of UPSC,CIC and courts of higher judiciary has passed adverse strictures against the UPSC for not complying with judgments/orders/directives passed on RTI matters and keep spending the public money on litigation and re-litigation? If this is right then what assurance can be given to make sure that same would not happen again and UPSC will comply with the current jurisdiction of RTI Act and its related case-laws, without judging itself out, as there is no explicit exemption given by Parliament or Executive or Judiciary at the moment?

4-Is it right that irrespective of being asked by National Archives of India(NAI) many times, UPSC refused to send its Record Retention Schedule to NAI for vetting, as required under Public Record Act and Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure? On what basis UPSC did the same and was there any follow-up action taken by UPSC, including approaching courts or GoI to exempt it from such current requirement under the law?

5- I have been informed that unlike many other public-bodies,UPSC has not fully complied with Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments in CBSE & Anr. versus Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors and Sanjay Singh & Anr. versus UPPCS and related case-law principles ,since these judgments were delivered and consequently UPSC is facing litigation on the same across the country? What minister and UPSC has to say on this?

UPSC has provided OMR sheet of CSP-2011. Candidate claim gross irregularity

Central Information Commission, New Delhi

File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000388

Right to Information Act2005Under

Section (19)

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

CIC/SM/A/2012/000388

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

gets settled.

6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

CIC/SM/A/2012/000388

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

CIC/SM/A/2012/000388

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