Central Information Commission
Manmohan Verma vs Union Public Service Commission on 5 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UPSCM/C/2022/659002
Mr. Manmohan Verma ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Union Public Service Commission
RTI Cell, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04/07/2023
Date of Decision : 04/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 12/10/2022
CPIO replied on : 31/10/2022
First appeal filed on : Not on Record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Complaint dated : 10/11/2022
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.10.2021 seeking the following information:
"I appeared in SOLDCE 2017 but could not qualify. As per the mark sheet uploaded on UPSC website I secured only 45 marks In Paper-3. I therefore request you to kindly provide me copy of my answer sheet for Paper-Ill i.e. Noting and Drafting of 1 SOLDCE-2017, so that I may be able to understand what mistakes committed and do not attempt the same In future."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 31.10.2022 stating as under:
"A copy of answer Sheet (Paper-3) ( of conventional/descriptive nature) is neither provided to the candidates nor to any third party. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 20th February, 2018 in CA Nos. 6159-6162 of 2013 and 5924/2013 (Union Public Service Commission versus Angesh Kumar & Ors with Joint Director and CPIO and Ant versus T.R.Rajesh) held that the Conventional answer sheets are exempted from disclosure under the RU Act, 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint stating as under:
"5. The facts of the referred case of 2013 are also completely different from my request as in the referred case the applicant was requesting the copy of Civil Services Preliminary Examination, 2010 which is an objective type paper and in which UPSC did scaling whereas I am seeking copies of a descriptive type paper for Limited Departmental Examination which is absolutely different in context and where UPSC does not scale the marks. The submissions made by UPSC for non- disclosure in their affidavit in the aforementioned case are also not relevant in my case as their focus was on methodology of scaling which is not applicable in SO- LDCE.
6. Further, following guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court suggests for the supplying of information
(a) As per Supreme Court in the decision of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, wherein following was held:
"...every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or taking certified copies thereof unless the same was exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005."
(b) The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India CBSE and Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay was further relied in the decision pronounced on 16.08.2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kumar Shanu and Anr. V. CBSE in I.A. No. 01/2016 in Contempt Petition No. 9837/2016 Civil Appeal No.6454/2011.
In the Supreme Court decision of Mradul Mishra v. Chairman, UPSC, Civil Appeal 6723 of 2018 it was held that:
"14. In our opinion, permitting a candidate to inspect the answer sheet does not involve any public interest nor does it affect the efficient operation of the 2 Government. There are issues of confidentiality and disclosure of sensitive information that may arise, but those have already been taken care of in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay where it has categorically been held that the identity of the examiner cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality.
15. That being the position, we have no doubt that the Appellant is entitled to inspect the answer sheets. Accordingly, we direct the Respondent - U.P. Public Service Commission to fix the date, time and place where the Appellant can come and inspect the answer sheet within four weeks."
7. It is also worth mention that due to the following reasons I did not prefer an appeal and filed this complaint:
(a) UPSC is clearly violating the directions of CIC in CIC/POSTS/A/2019/117896-UM ordered on 24.05.2021 in the matter of Mr. Venu C V/s CPIO, O/o General Manager (Finance), Postal Accounts, Department of Post wherein commission took care of all the above judgements and directed specifically stated regarding UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar &Ors in Civil Appeal No. (s) 6159-6162 of 2013 that "The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is thus limited to the Competitive Exams which do not cover the Departmental Exams per-se held by the Public Authorities nor is applicable to situations where it is prima-facie made out that larger public interest is involved. Moreover, the Commission sees this as a serious case wherein multiple Second Appeals related to the said exam are being heard by the Commission on regular basis."
In the aforementioned case CIC itself affirmed that "The Commission also felt that issue under consideration involves Larger Public Interest affecting the fate of all the students /candidates who wish to obtain information regarding their own answer sheet which would understandably have a bearing on their future career prospects which in turn would ostensibly affect their right to life and livelihood. Hence, allowing inspection of their own answer sheet to the students/ candidates ought to be allowed as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005."
(b) UPSC, vide para V at Page 11 of Record Retention Schedule, regarding rentention of answer sheet of a candidate states that they keep them for SIX MONTHS FROM THE CONCLUSION OF THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION OR 45 DAYS FROM THE START OF DISPLAY OF MARKSHEETS ON THE COMMISSION'S WEBSITE, WHICHEVER IS LATER".
Since, the examination was concluded on 21.09.2022 /Date of display of marksheet therefore it is necessary that they keep my marksheet which they only do in case of complaint/court cases etc. only.
310. Therefore, in the light of the above submissions I request you to kindly take necessary action and direct UPSC to provide me copy of my answer sheet at the earliest."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: A K Roy, CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO submitted that the issue for determination in the instant case is already sub judice vide W.P(C) 17101/2022 & CM APPL.54278/2022 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as has been already taken on record by the bench in another similar case decided on 18.05.2023 in the matter of Manoj Kumar Singh vs. UPSC.
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the grounds of Complaint do no warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act. In other words, the denial of the information by the CPIO does not suggest any malafides or deliberate denial of the information to warrant an inquiry under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act.
Nonetheless, the submissions of the CPIO have been considered and concurred with. However, since the instant case is not a Second Appeal seeking for relief, the factum of the stay order is inconsequential to the disposal of the instant matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 4