PIL ABOUT RAW MARKS AND ANSWERSHEET: PIL/98/2012 of HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY AT BOMBAY

[RULE 4(e) OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION RULES, 2010]

PIL Petition No. 98                        of 2012

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION SEEKING DIRECTION AGAINST THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO PROVIDE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE ANSWER BOOKS OF THE EXAMINEES ALONGWITH THE RAW AND MODERATED MARKS OF ALL CANDIDATES FOR THE CIVIL SERVICES EXAMINATION – 2011.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION SEEKING TO QUASH THE RECORD RETENTION SCHEDULE OF THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION BY WHICH THE UPSC WILL DISTROY THE EXAMINEES’ ANSWER BOOKS AFTER 45 DAYS OF THE DISPLAY OF THE MARKS ON ITS WEBSITE.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION SEEKING DIRECTION AGAINST THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO RETAIN ANSWER SHEETS OF ALL THE EXAMINEES UPTOONE YEAR.

1.       Dr. PrachiDilipPampattiwar

          Age: Adult, Occ. Doctor

R/o. Darpan Co-operative Housing Society,

Flat No: 201, Wing A,Budhaji Nagar, Kalwa,

Dist. Thane – 400605.

          Mobile Number: 

          PAN: 

          Email: 

2.       Dr. PrashantRamesh Chakkarwar

          Age: Adult, Occ. Psychiatrist

R/o. Darpan Co-operative Housing Society,

Flat No: 201, Wing A,Budhaji Nagar, Kalwa,

Dist. Thane – 400605.

          Mobile Number: 

          PAN:

          Email: 

…Petitioners

          Versus

1.       Union Public Service Commission

Dholpur House,Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi – 110069.

2.       Union of India,

Through Ministry of Personnel

Public Grievances and Pension

Department of Personnel and Training

Through Secretary, New Delhi

…Respondents

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION PETITION

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

A.      Particulars of the cases/order against which the Petition is made:

1.       The petitioners are filing this writ petition in public interest challenging the Constitutional and Legal validity of refusal of Respondent No.1 to provide to the Examinees of the Civil Services Examination – 2011 the information asked by them regarding the Civil Service Examination. Refusal to provide information violates the Legal as well as Constitutional Right of the Examinees under Right to Information Act, 2005 and Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India.

          The Petitioners seek Direction to the Respondents for providing photo copies of the answer books of the Applicants as asked by various Applicants by their applications under Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of Civil Services Main Examination – 2011 immediately.

          The Petitioners also seek direction against the respondents for providing Raw and Scaled marks of all candidates of Civil Services Main Examination – 2011 asked by various candidates by their applications under Right to Information Act – 2005.

          The Petitioners also seekto quash the Record Retention Schedule of the Respondent No.1 by which the Respondent seeks to destroy in destroying the documents relating to Civil Services Examination 2011 within six months. The retention period should be aligned with the time duration given by Law for challenging the violation of their legal rights i.e. one year.

          The Petitioners also seek the direction against the Respondent No.1 for its logic of countingthe retention period which should be taken from the day when result is declared, not from the day when exam is over. The logic for counting of the retention period is arbitrary and is a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

B.      Particulars of the Petitioners

1.       The Petitioners herein are Public Spirited Individuals fighting for the Rights of Students who appear for or have appeared for in the Civil Services Main Examination – 2011 conducted by the Respondent No.1.The Petitioner No.1 is a Doctor by profession working in the Rajiv Gandhi Medical College, Kalwa, Thane and the Petitioner No.2 is a Doctor by profession working in Sion Hospital as a Psychiatrist. The Petitioners submit that they have no personal interest in the issues agitated in this Writ Petition and any reliefs if granted are going to be beneficial to the lakhs of candidates who appear for the Civil Services Examination and will also affect the interest of citizens of this Country as the reliefs if granted will bring transparency in the Selection of the topmost bureaucrats of the Country.

2.       The Petitioner No.1 states that she is not involved in any other civil, revenue or criminal litigation in any capacity before any Court or Tribunal.

3.       The Petitioner No.2 states that he is party to following pending litigation:

     i.        Chittaranjan Kumar and Others v. UPSC and Others, WP (C) 3973 OF 2011 pending in High Court of Delhi relating to disclosure of Raw Marks in the Civil Services Examination – 2008.

   ii.       

4.       The Respondent No.1, Union PublicService Commission, conducts Civil Services Examination every year for selection of candidates for appointment on various posts for Civil Services in India. The Civil Services Examination is the most coveted examination in the Country as the topmost bureaucrats of India are selected through this examination. The Respondent No.2 is the Ministry of PersonnelPublic Grievances and Pension which directly controls the functioning of the Respondent No.1. Both being the instrumentalities of state are amenable to the Writ Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

C.      Declaration and undertaking of the Petitioners

1.       That the present petition is being filed by way of public interest litigation and the petitioners do not have any personal interest in the matter. The petition is being filed in the interest of Candidates who appeared for the Civil Services Examination – 2011. Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “1” is an affidavit in this regard in terms of Rule 7(a) of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010.

2.       That the entire litigation costs, including the advocate’s fee and other charges are being borne by the petitioners.

3.       That a thorough research has been conducted in the matter raised through the Petition.

4.       That to the best of the Petitioners’ knowledge and research, the issue raised was not dealt with or decided and that a similar or identical petition was not filed earlier by the Petitioners.

5.       That the petitioners have understood that in the course of hearing of this Petition the Court may require any security to be furnished towards costs or any other charges and the Petitioners shall have to comply with such requirements. Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “2” is an affidavit in this regard in terms of Rule 7(b) of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010.

D.      Fact constituting the Cause

1.       The Petitioners state that Civil Services Examination is conducted in three stages, i) Preliminary Examination, ii) Mains Examination and iii) Interview. Every year lakhs of candidates appear for this examination which ends in selection of only a few successful candidates. The nature and status of examination sees all these candidates prepare for years putting a financial burden on themselves and the families. Every unsuccessful candidate is causing monitory loss to their families along with mental agony of trial and failure.

          Various unsuccessful candidates have sought,under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the photo copies of their answer books for Civil Services Mains Examinations – 2011, conducted by the Respondent No.1 suspecting irregularity and lapses in evaluation process, amongst other grounds. It is the experience of the Petitioner that none of the candidates seeking for copies of answer books have ever got a copy.

          It is the experience of the Petitioner from the replies of the Respondent No.1 to various Right to Information applications of various candidates that the Respondent No.1 used to refuse to give any information sought under the applications claiming exemption under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) quoting the Central Information Commission’s decision in Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Harish Chander, Complaint No.CIC/WB/C2006/00223. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “A”is the copy of one of the replies of the Respondent No.1 to the Right to Information application of one Mr. Ashish Gupta dated 4.05.2010.

2.       The Petitioners state that it was an unfortunate incident for the candidates of the Civil Services Examinations when in Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Harish Chander, the Central Information Commission held that the examining body had rightly refused information under Sec.8(1)(e) and (g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, however, after the CBSE v.AdityaBandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497the Central Information Commission’s decision stands overruled. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “B” is the photocopy of the judgment of the Central Information Commission dated 23.04.2007 Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Harish Chander, Complaint No. CIC/WB/C2006/00223.

3.       The Petitioner states that, in view ofHon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment dated 9.08.2011 in Central Board of Secondary Education v. AdityaBandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, all examining bodies including Public Service Commissionshave to provide under Right to Information Act,2005, the Certified Copies of evaluated Answer Books to candidates. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “C” is the copy of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in CBSE v. AdityaBandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.

4.       As the Respondent No.1 used to refuse information claiming exemption under Sec.8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner is reproducing the exemption as follows:

“(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;”

          Regarding the exemption claimed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 8(1)(e), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in AdityaBandopadhyay’scasein Paragraph 27 that:

          “…an examining body does not hold the valuated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer books.”

5.       As the Respondent No.1 further used to refuse information claiming exemption under Sec.8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 the Petitioner is reproducing Sec.8(1)(g) as follows:

“(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physicalsafety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given inconfidence for law enforcement or security purposes;”

          Regarding the exemption claimed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 8(1)(g) the Supreme Court has observed in AdityaBandopadhyay’scase that:

          “…Those portions of the answer-books which contain information regarding the examiners/coordinators/ scrutinisers/head examiners or which may disclose their identity with reference to signature or initials, shall have to be removed, covered, or otherwise severed from the non-exempted part of the answer-books, under Section 10 of the RTI Act.”

6.       Regarding the applicability of the AdityaBandopadhyay’sdecision to the Respondent No.1, the Petitioners state that, Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) was one of the party to CBSE v. AdityaBandopadhyay as APSC’s Civil Application Nos.6465-6468 of 2011 were attached to Civil Application No.6454 OF 201 filed under CBSE v. AdityaBandopadhyay.

          Since APSC was a party to the decision, the judgment in AdityaBandopadhyay’s case applied to APSC. APSC and Respondent No.1 are both constitutional bodies both dealing with conducting examination for selecting candidates for Civil Services, the same principles should be applicable to Respondent No.1, mutatis mutandis. Further the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically makes all the observations using the term “examining bodies” itself makes it clear that since the Respondent No.1 is an examining body, the decision in AdityaBandopadhyay’s case are applicable to Respondent No.1.

7.       The Petitioner states that, after the AdityaBandopadhyay’s judgment, the Respondent No.1 has started refusing the Answer Books claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d). Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “D”are the copies of the Applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 of various candidates and the replies of the Respondent No.1 claiming Section 8(1)(d) as exemption for not giving the information.

8.       It is pertinent here to note that,

a.    The Respondent No.1 started refusing the answer books and other information asked by the candidates under Right to Information Act, 2005, by taking defense of Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

b.    After the Central Information Commission’s judgment in Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Harish Chander the Respondent No.1 started taking defense of the judgment of the CIC in Rakesh Kumar Singh’s case.

c.    After the AdityaBandopadhyay’s judgment the Respondent has started taking the defense of Section 8(1)(d).

          This conduct of Respondent No.1 shows its mala fides as it is following avoidance tactics and trying to find new excuses every time to avoid giving information.

9.       The Petitioner here specifically quotes the contention of the CBSE in AdityaBandopadhyay’s Judgment which was also accepted by the Supreme Court to be applicable to all examining bodies. The Supreme Court observed in paragraph No.14 as follows:

“(14) The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer-books are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as they are ‘information’ held in its fiduciary relationship. They fairly conceded that evaluated answer-books will not fall under any other exemptions in sub-section (1) of Section 8. Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or take certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer-books are found to be exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.”

          On this the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically observed in Paragraph No.27 that:

          “(27) We, therefore, hold that an examining body does not hold the valuated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer books. As no other exemption under Section 8 is available in respect of evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection sought by the examinees.”

          After the CBSE’s contentions in the AdityaBandopadhyay’s case that evaluated answer-books will not fall under any other exemption than Section 8(1)(e), the Supreme Court has observed that the Examining bodies have no other exemption under the Section 8 other than Section 8(1)(e).

10.     The Petitioner states that the Respondent No.1 also refused and has kept on refusing information under Sec.8(1) regarding the Raw and Scaled marks of the candidates.

          The Petitioner states that, the Central Information Commission in Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00793 had specifically directed the Respondent No.1 to provide the Raw and Scaled marks of the candidates who have sought those under Right to Information applications. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “E” is the copy of the Central Information Commission’s judgment in Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00793.

11.     The Petitioner states that Respondent No.1 had challenged the judgment of CIC in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by WP (C) No.17583 of 2006. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld the CIC’s judgment with some modifications. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “F” is the copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s in WP (C) No.17583 of 2006.

          The Respondent No.1 challenged the judgment in WP (C) No.17582 of 2006 in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by LPA No. 313 of 2007. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was pleased to dismiss the Letter Patent Appeal thereby upholding the judgments of the CIC and Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “G” is the copy of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 313 of 2007.

12.     The Respondent No.1 further challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the Hon’ble Supreme Court by SLP No.23250 of 2008. While the SLP was pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Respondent No.1 refused the information to various candidates on the ground that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court, the information cannot be disclosed. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “H” are the two replies given by the Respondent No.1 to candidates Aashish Gupta and Chittaranjan Kumar while the SLP 23250 of 2008 was pending before the Supreme Court.

          Further it is observed in CIC/WB/A/2007/00694, the CIC has by specifically mentioning Raw Marks/Moderated and Scaled marks, separately that those cannot be given since SLP 23250 of 2008 is under consideration by the Supreme Court. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “I” is the copy of the CIC’s order in CIC/WB/A/2007/00694.

          It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP observing that since the Commission has completely changed the pattern of its examination for the year 2011, it will not adjudicate on this matter. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “J” is the copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissing the SLP of the Respondent No.1.

13.     After dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, many candidates approached the Respondent No.1 seeking Raw and Scaled marks. Since the CPIO refused to give the marks flaunting the previous decisions of the CIC, Delhi High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court, the candidates filed and Appeal No. 08/RTI Appeal/JS(RD)/UPSC/2011. The appellate authority directed the CPIO of the Respondent No.1 to reconsider the matter and provide the information to the appellants. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “K” is the copy of the Appeal No. 08/RTI Appeal/JS(RD)/UPSC/2011.

          After the dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Petitioner No.2 also applied to the Respondent No.1 for Raw Marks of all candidates, however it was refused by the Respondent No.1. On which, the Petitioner No.2 filed an appeal to the Central Information Commission by Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2010/000332 & 523 SM. The Respondent No.1 filed an Affidavit in that appeal, the Petitioners hereby quote the contention of the Respondent No.1 as follows:

“Raw Marks are unprocessed/unanalyzed data, which undergo the following operations/treatment:

·         Scrutiny with regard to errors (totaling, portion remaining unvalued, extra answers etc.) and correction thereof.

·         Scrutiny by other examiner(s) and requisite adjustments

·         Moderation exercise to bring uniformity in evaluation.

While passing through the above irreversible processes, there marks get modified and are masked/overwritten at the end of each process and ultimately the marks awarded (or final marks) only remain, which only are maintained as per the prescribed Record Retention Schedule.”

          Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “L” is the copy of the Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.1 before the CIC in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2010/000332.

          This stand of Respondent No.1 is also contrary to their stand taken in 2008 in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00192 where the Respondent No.1 has stated that the English answer sheet contained answers to five questions marked in red and totaled separately and moderated marks were marked in blue ink and stated in totality. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “M” is the copy of the Order in Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/00192.

          It is pertinent to note that the Respondent No.1 has been taking different stands at different time which nothing but evasive and avoidance tactics. However, after the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed Respondent No.1’s SLP 23250 of 2008 by its order dated 18.11.2010, the judgments of CIC and Delhi High Court stand upheld and therefore, the Respondent No.1 is duty bound to provide the Raw and scaled marks of all candidates for Civil Services Examination – 2011 asasked by candidates by their RTI applications.

14.     The Petitioner believes that the Respondent No.1 is trying so hard to conceal the information regarding the Civil Services Examination – 2011 to conceal the frauds and dupery committed by it in the Selection Process.

          It is pertinent to mention that, this is very serious issue as it deals with careers of lakhs of intellectual youths of India, which gives their most productive age from 21-35of their life preparing for this examination. Hence its outcome has profound effect on Life and Liberty of candidate.

          The Petitioner further states that the Civil Services Examination is most coveted examination in India as the topmost of bureaucrats of India are selected through this examination.

15.     The Petitioner further states the Supreme Court’s observations in in ICAIv. Shaunak H. Satya, 2011 (8) SCC 781 as follows:

“Examining bodies like ICAI should change their old mindsets and tune them to the new regime of disclosure of maximum information. Public authorities should realize that in an era of transparency, previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place. Accountability and prevention of corruption is possible only trough transparency. Attaining transparency no doubt would involve additional work with reference to maintaining records and furnishing information. Parliament has enacted the RTI Act providing access to information, after great debate and deliberations by the civil society and Parliament. In its wisdom, parliament has chosen to exempt only certain categories of information from disclosure and certain organizations from the applicability of the Act, as the examining bodies have not been exempted, and as the examination processes of the examining bodies have not been exempted, the examining bodies will have to gear themselves to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. Additional workload is not a defense. If there are practical insurmountable difficulties, it is open to the examining bodies to bring them to the notice of the government for consideration so that any changes to the Act can be deliberated upon”.

16.     The Petitioner states that the Respondent No.1 has a Record Retention Schedule by which the Respondent retains the records for a certain period. Before, 31.12.2011 the Respondent had a retention schedule which allowed them to retain the answer books for 1 year from the date of examination or 60 days from the declaration of marks on Respondent No.1’s website.

          The Petitioner states that, the Respondent No.1 changed the Record Retention Schedule thereby making a provision to retain the answer books for 6 months from the date of examination or 45 days from the date of declaration of marks on the Respondent’s website, whichever is later. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “N” is the copy of the Old and New Record Retention Schedule of the Respondent No.1.

          The Petitioner states that this is Respondent No.1’s new device to conceal information as, when a candidate applies under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for information the information will not be given to him within 45 days and the record of the candidates will be destroyed.

17.     The Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 2467 of 2006 has observed that it is illogical to calculate one year’s time from destruction of Answer Books from the date on which a person appears in the Written Examination. Grievances, so far as the marking is concerned, would arise only when the Results are declared. Record Retention Schedule, in as much as it stipulates that Records shall be kept for one year, can only be fairly and logically interpreted to commence from the date when the Results are declared. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “O” is the copy of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s judgment in WP (C) No.2467 of 2006.

18.     The Petitioners state that the Civil Services Examination was conducted with the following schedule.

Date	Event
12.06.2011	Preliminary Examination in the Civil Services Examination – 2011 was conducted
17.08.2011	Result of the Preliminary examination was declared
October-November 2011	Main Examination in the Civil Services Examination – 2011 was conducted
1.03.2012	Result of the Main examination was declared
16.03.2012	Respondent No.1 issued an Interview Call Letters to Candidates clearing Main Examination
March-April 2012	Candidates appeared for Interview
4.05.2012	The Selection list was published
17.05.2012	The Mark sheets of the candidates were published on the Respondent No.1’s website

          The Petitioners state that according to the Record Retention Schedule the Respondent No.1 will destroy the candidates’ answer books after 45 days of the declaration of the marks. Since the marks were declared on 17.05.2012, the Respondent will destroy the candidate’s answer books on 2.07.2012.

E.      GROUNDS

a.    The conduct of the Respondent No.1 in refusing to disclose information regarding the Civil Services Examination – 2011 is tainted with mala fides as it is following avoidance tactics and trying to find new excuses every time to avoid giving information.

b.    The mala fide intentions of the Respondent No.1 are revealed by the fact that before the Central Information Commission’s judgment, it took the defense of Section 8(1)(e) and (g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005; after the Central Information Commission’s judgment, it took the defense of the CIC’s judgment; and after the CIC’s judgment stood overruled by the AdityaBandopadhyay’s judgment, the Respondent No.1 started taking the defense of Section 8(1)(d).

c.    The Supreme Court has specifically held that the examining bodies do not hold the valuated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer books.

d.    Regarding the defense of Section 8(1)(g), the Supreme Court has specifically held that the portions of the answer-books which contain information regarding the examiners/coordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners or which may disclose their identity with reference to signature or initials, shall have to be removed, covered, or otherwise severed from the non-exempted part of the answer-books, under Section 10 of the RTI Act.

e.    The Respondent No.1 is also bound to disclose the Raw and Scaled marks of the candidates as the SLP No. 23250 of 2008 agitating the exemption from disclosing it was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

f.     Even after dismissal of the Respondent No.1’s Special Leave Petition thereby directing them to disclose Raw and Scaled marks of the candidates, the Respondent No.1 is still not providing the Raw and Scaled marks of the Candidates, let alone the Answer Books.

g.    It is pertinent to mention that UPSC is applying the method of statistical Moderation, by which it upgrade or downgrade the marks of the candidates. This statistical method require average of marks, maximum, minimum and standard deviation and to arrive at these parameters raw marks of all candidates are required. According to UPSC ,the raw marks are available only on Answersheets so they must be kept intact till they provide candidates raw and scaled/Moderated marks of all candidates under Right to Information Act,2005.

h.   The Right to Information is a legal Right which directly relates to the Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1). As early as in 1976, the Supreme Court said in the case of Raj Narain v. State of UP that people cannot speak or express themselves unless they know.

i.     Right to information is embedded in article 19, and as observed in Raj Narain v. State of UP by the Supreme Court, India is a democracy, People are the masters and therefore, the masters have a right to know how the governments, meant to serve them, are functioning.

j.     Right to Information Act 2005 provides a machinery or a process through which a citizen of India can exercise his fundamental right. Therefore, Right to Information Act does not give us any new right. It simply lays down the process on how to apply for information, where to apply, how much fees etc.

k.    As per Law, In case there is violation of any legal rights in the Civil Service examination, an applicant can challenge the violation of his legal rights in Central Administrative Tribunal or in any other Court for a period of 1 year.

l.     The Respondent No.1 has acted with mala fides by modifying the Record Retention Schedule and reducing the period of retaining the answer books of the candidates, as the candidates will lose more than 45 days in obtaining the information under the regular Right to Information procedure.

m.  The modification of the Record Retention has been done in gross violation of the Public Records Act, 1993.

n.   Once, the Respondent No.1 destroys the answer books after 45 days the candidates will not have any remedy left with them.

o.    The Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 2467 of 2006 has observed that it is illogical to calculate one year’s time from destruction of Answer Books from the date on which a person appears in the Written Examination. Grievances, so far as the marking is concerned, would arise only when the Results are declared. Record Retention Schedule, in as much as it stipulates that Records shall be kept for one year, can only be fairly and logically interpreted to commence from the date when the Results are declared.

p.    The non-transparent, non-accountable functioning of the UPSC and the complete secrecy Regarding Civil Services Examination and recruitment process herein applying violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which guarantees the right to information, and the same being arbitrary is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

q.    The Respondent No.1 is making the candidates to run from pillar to post to obtain the Certified Copies of their Answersheets and Raw and Scaled/Moderated marks of all candidates to prove their case that their non-selection in Civil Services is because of the irregularities committed by UPSC in the evaluation process.

F.       Source of Information:

The Petitioners state that the information relied on in this Public Interest Litigation has been gathered by the Petitioners

1.    from various candidates who appeared for the Civil Services Examination – 2011

2.    through his own Right to Information Applications filed in the office of the Respondent No.1 UPSC, and

3.    The NGO Transparency Seekers for Accountability.

The Petitioners state that they have verified the information themselves personally and to the best of their knowledge, believe it to be correct. Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “3” is an affidavit in this regard in terms of Rule 7(c) of the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010.

G.      Other Declarations:

1.       The Petitioners state that they have not made any representation to the Respondent No.1 apart from the Right to Information applications made by various candidates on which they rely on for the purpose of this Public Interest Litigation.

2.       The Petitioners state that there is no delay in filing this Public Interest Litigation.

3.       The Petitioner states that have not filed any other writ, complaint, suit or claim in any manner claiming the reliefs claimed in this Public Interest Litigation in this Hon’ble court.

4.       The Petitioners crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to add to and amend this Writ Petition, whenever any new material in support of this Public Interest Litigation are found or discovered by the Petitioners.

5.       The Petitioners undertake to submit English translations of Hindi and Marathi documents if required by this Hon’ble Court.

6.       The Petitioners have paid the Court fees of Rs.500/- while filing this Public Interest Litigation.

7.       The Petitioners undertake to provide typed copies of illegible documents if any in the course of pendency of this Public Interest Litigation.

8.       The Petitioners state that the reliefs claimed in this PIL if granted will be in full and will be beneficial to the laks of Candidates appearing every year for the Civil Services Examination and also to the citizens of India as the topmost bureaucrats of India are selected through this examination.

9.       The Petitioners submit additional documents relating to the issue agitated in this Public Interest Litigation, which documents have been obtained by the Petitioner through various sources among NGO’s and Newspapers. Annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit “P” is a compilation of additional documents related to the Public Interest Litigation.

H.      Documents relied on:

As per the List of Documents annexed to this Public Interest Litigation.

I.       The Petitioner therefore Prays that

1.    This Hon’ble Court by a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction be pleased to direct the Respondents to provide Certified copies of answer books of the candidates as sought by them in their Right to Information applications under Right to Information Act, 2005 as submitted to the Central Public Information officer, UPSC regarding the Civil Services Examinations 2011.

2.    This Hon’ble Court by a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction be pleased to direct the respondents to provide the Raw and scaled/Moderated marks of all candidates of Civil Services Main Examination – 2011 as sought by the candidates by their applications under Right to Information Act,2005.

3.    This Hon’ble Court by a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to retain the answer books of all the candidates who appeared for the Civil Services Examination-2011 till the same is provided and any incidental proceeding arising out of it are exhausted.

4.    Any other appropriate relief may be granted by which this Court is of the opinion that the interest of the candidates who appeared for the Civil Services Examination – 2011 will be protected.

J.       Interim Order prayed for

1.    Pending hearing and final disposal of this Petition, This Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the Record Retention Schedule of the Respondent No.1 dated 31.12.2011.

2.    Pending hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent to retain the answer books of all the candidates who appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 2011.

3.    Any other appropriate relief may be granted by which this Court is of the opinion that the interest of the candidates who appeared for the Civil Services Examination – 2011 will be protected.

K.      Caveat

The Petitioners state that they have received no notice of lodging a caveat by the opposite parties.

Place: Mumbai

Date:  27^th June, 2012

(Dr. PrachiDilipPampattiwar)

Petitioner No.1

(Dr. PrashantRamesh Chakkarwar)

Petitioner No.2