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
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
