KERALA HIGH COURT DIRECTS UPSC TO ALLOW INSPECTION OF ANSWERSHEETS OF CIVIL SERVICES EXAM.

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                             PRESENT:

                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

                   THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/17TH JYAISHTA 1934

                                    WP(C).No. 37734 of 2010 (N)

                                       ---------------------------

PETITIONER :

---------------------

             T.R.RAJESH,

             31/346, SOUPARNIKA, PARADISE ROAD

             VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI, PIN-682 019.

             BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL S.RAJ

                          SMT.K.N.RAJANI

                          SRI.G.ARUN GOPAN

RESPONDENT(S):

--------------------------

          1. JOINT DIRECTORS AND CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,

              UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DHOLPUR HOUSE,

              SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 069.

          2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY JOINT SECRETARY (EXAMINATIONS),

              UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DHOLPUR HOUSE,

              SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 069.

          3. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION,

              AUGUST KRANTI BHAVAN, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE

              NEW DELHI-110 066.

              BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, SC

            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-06-2012,

            THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Mn

                                                                              ...2/-

WP(C).No. 37734 of 2010 (N)

                                 APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

EXT.P1     : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE

             1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.5.2010.

EXT.P2     : COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED

             14/6/2010.

EXT.P3     : COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE

             THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 5/7/2010.

EXT.P4     : COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTED THE

             1ST APPEAL DATED 20/8/2010.

EXT.P5     : COPY OF THE SECOND APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE

             THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26/9/2010.

EXT.P6       COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE

             1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6/10/2010.

EXT.P7       COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED

             4.11.2010.

EXT.P8       COPY OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER

             BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 6/10/2010.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

EXT.R1(a)  : COPY OF APPEAL UNDER RTI ACT 2005.

EXT.R1(b)    COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

                                                            //TRUE COPY//

                                                           P.S. TO JUDGE

Mn

                    T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

                       ------------------------------------

                        W.P.(C).No. 37734 of 2010

                       ------------------------------------

              DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JUNE, 2012

                                JUDGMENT

      The petitioner was a candidate who appeared with Roll No.092645 in

the Civil Service Main examination held by the Union Public Service

Commission in 2009.

      2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the orders

by which the information sought in respect of three items were denied and

the appeal was also rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Central Board of

Secondary Education v. Adiya Bandopadhyay (2011 (3) KLT SN 117 (C.

No.120) SC) there cannot be any objection in allowing an opportunity to

the petitioner to verify the valued answer sheets in respect of the written

examination undertaken by the petitioner in different papers.

      3.   Heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents who

submitted that actually the petitioner had demanded information regarding

three matters: (a) marklist; (b) details of the valuers; and (c) information

regarding evaluated answer book. It is submitted that the objection stated

by the respondents are really valid in the light of the provisions of the Act.

W.P.(C).No.37734/2010

                                      -2-

      4. In Adiya Bandopadhyay's case (supra) the Apex Court, while

considering the definition of 'information', held as follows:

            "The definition of 'information' in S.2(f) of the R.T.I. Act refers

            to any material in any form which includes records, documents,

            opinions, papers among several other enumerated items. The

            term 'record' is defined in S.2(i) of the said Act as including any

            document, manuscript or file among others. When a candidate

            participates in an examination and writes his answers in an

            answer-book and submits it to the examining body for

            evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer-book is a

            document or record. When the answer-book is evaluated by an

            examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated

            answer-book becomes a record containing the 'opinion' of the

            examiner.    Therefore, the evaluated answer-book is also an

            'information' under the R.T.I. Act."

Going by the above decision, once the answer book is evaluated by an

examiner, it becomes a record containing his opinion and consequently it

will be an information under the Act.

      5. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in

that respect and the writ petition is allowed to that extent. There will be a

direction to the competent authority of the            Union Public Service

Commission to provide facility to the petitioner to verify the valued answer

W.P.(C).No.37734/2010

                                      -3-

papers and appropriate communication will be issued in this regard to the

petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment. The petitioner will be informed about the venue as well as

the time of inspection sufficiently in advance. No costs.

                                  T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

kav/

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

BE AWARE FRIENDS,UPSC HAS STARTED GIVING NEW EXCUSE BEFORE CIC THAT CANDIDATES HAS NOT INFORMED ABOUT SECOND APPEAL ,SO WE WEEDED OUT HIS ANSWERSHEETS. SO PLEASE INFORM UPSC ABOUT YOUR SECOND APPEAL.

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

CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED AGAINST UPSC CHAIRMAN D.P.AGGARWAL FOR NOT ABIDING BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN LPA 229/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI         CONT.CAS(C) 661/2012         ANGESH KUMAR and ORS ..... Petitioner     Through: Mr Pankaj Kumar, Adv.         versus         DHARMA PAL AGGARWAL and ANR. ..... Respondents     Through         CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER          O R D E R      28.09.2012         CM No. 17166/2012 (Exemption)     Allowed subject to just exceptions.     CONT.CAS.(C) 661/2012     By this contempt petition compliance is sought of the directions   issued by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 13.07.2012 passed in   LPA No. 229/2011 and WP(C) 3316/2011. Briefly, the petitioner has   sought following information:     ?(i) details of marks (raw and scaled marks) obtained by this   selected candidates in their respective optional subjects of the Civil   Services Preliminary Examination , 2010;     (ii) details of the marks (raw and scaled) obtained by the respondents   themselves in the said examination;     (iii) The cut off marks of each optional subject in the said   examination.?             CONT.CAS(C) 661/2012 Page 1 of 2     It is also brought to my notice that a review was filed qua the   judgment of the Division Bench, which has also been dismissed.     Learned counsel for respondents says that they propose to file a   SLP against the aforesaid judgment of this Court.     In view of the above, learned counsel for the respondents   undertakes to the Court that in case they are not successful in obtaining   any interim orders in the SLP, which they propose to file within six   weeks from today, they shall disclose the information as directed by the   Division Bench.     On this assurance, the contempt petition is disposed of.     List for compliance on 29.11.2012.             RAJIV SHAKDHER, J     SEPTEMBER 28, 2012     kk                                         CONT.CAS(C) 661/2012 Page 2 of 2         $ 33

	Search Result For party :ANGESH KUMAR year :2012" are : 1   S.No. Diary No. / Case No. [STATUS] Petitioner Vs. Respondent Advocate Listing Date / Court No. 1.  CONT.CAS(C)  661/2012    [PENDING] ANGESH KUMAR & ORS Vs.   DHARMA PAL AGGARWAL Advocate : PANKAJ KUMAR  Court No. : 7 Last Date:

ANSWERSHEETS OF ALL CANDIDATES FOR CIVIL SERVICES EXAM 2006 TO 2011 WILL BE KEPT INTACT,TILL DISPOSAL OF THIS WRIT PETITION

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 
 
 
  W.P.(C) 6075/2012 and CM No. 16406/2012 (Interim direction)
 
 
 
  ANUJ PRAKASH AND ORS ..... Petitioners
 
  Through: Mr Partha Mandal, Petitioner no. 3 in person.
 
 
 
 
versus
 
 
 
  UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Respondent
 
  Through: Mr Naresh Kaushik, Adv.
 
 
 
  CORAM:
 
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
 
 
 
   O R D E R
 
   25.09.2012
 
 
 
  Issue notice.
 
  Mr Naresh Kaushik accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
 
  Let a counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if
  any, be filed before the next date.
 
  Learned counsel for the respondent says that they will preserve the
  answer sheets of all the candidates who, sat in the civil services
  examinations between 2006 to 2011, during the pendency of the writ
  petition, if they are otherwise available as of now.
 
  With the aforesaid statement, the application for interim direction
  stands disposed of.
 
  List on 25.02.2013.
 
  Dasti.
 
 
 
  RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
 
  SEPTEMBER 25, 2012/kk
 
  $ 40