Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Abhinav Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 May, 2025

                                      के ीय सूचना आयोग
                              Central Information Commission
                                   बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                               Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                 नई िद   ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं        ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2024/615069

 Abhinav Singh                                                   ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
 CPIO:
 Union Public Service Commission,                           ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
 New Delhi

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 03.11.2023                FA      : 21.12.2023            SA     : Nil

 CPIO : 21.11.2023               FAO : 10.01.2024                Hearing : 12.03.2025


Date of Decision: 14.05.2025
                                         CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                        ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1) "Kindly provide a certified copy of the Answer Key to the Question Paper I and Question Paper II, in respect of Combined SO (Grade-B) LDC Examination, 2019-2022 held on 26 August, 2023 (For year - 2019-2020).

2) Kindly provide a certified copy of the Sample Answer or Standard Answer sheets to the Question Paper III, in respect of Combined SO (Grade-B) LDC Examination, 2019-2022 held on 27 August, 2023 (For year - 2019-2020).

3) Kindly provide a certified copy of my answer sheets to the Question Paper III, in respect of Combined SO (Grade-B) LDC Examination, 2019-2022 held on 27 August, 2023 (For year - 2019-2020). My Roll Number is 0803089 (Abhinav Singh).

4) Kindly provide a certified copy of the Answer Key to the Question Paper I and Question Paper II, in respect of Combined SO (Grade-B) LDC Examination, 2019-2022 held on 14 October, 2023 (For year - 2021-2022).

5) Kindly provide a certified copy of the Sample Answer or Standard Answer to the Question Paper III, in respect of Combined SO (Grade-B) LDC Examination, 2019-2022 held on 15 October, 2023 (For year - 2021-2022)."

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"Points No. 1: Answer key of objective type papers in respect of SO, LDCE, 2019-20 had already been uploaded on the website of the Commission.

Points No. 2 & 5: Sample answer / standard answer in respect of conventional/descriptive type papers is not prepared/ maintained by the Commission.

Point No. 3: The copy of evaluated answer sheet (Paper-3) (of conventional /descriptive nature) is neither provided to the candidates nor to any third party, Judgement dated 20th February, 2018 of Hon'ble Supreme Court on disclosure of raw marks and evaluated answer sheets in civil appeal No.(s) 6159-6162 of 2013 (UPSC etc. Vs Angesh Kumar & Ors etc.) with CA No. 5924/2013 (Joint Director and CPIO and Anr. Versus T.R. Rajesh) may be referred to in this regard where Hon'ble Court has upheld the Commission's stand with regard to non-disclosure of raw marks and evaluated answer sheets.

Point No. 4: Information in respect of SO, LDCE, 2021-22 will be proved only after the completion of entire process of the exam, after declaration of the final result.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.12.2023. The FAA vide order dated 10.01.2024 stated that:

"I note that the reply given by the CPIO, UPSC is appropriate, to the extent information available with him at that time. Now that the results of the SO LDCE, 2021- 2022 have been declared, the CPIO is directed to revisit the point No.4 of the RTI application in question and give an appropriate reply/information to the Appellant within 10 (Ten) working days from the date of issue of this communication."

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Jitendra Kumar Mandal, CPIO along with Mukul Kumar Gupta, CPIO attended the hearing in person.

6. The Appellant stated that he is primarily aggrieved with the denial of his answer sheet sought for at point no. 3 of the RTI Application and alleged that the Angesh Kumar judgment of the Apex Court as cited by the Respondent is not applicable to Combined SO (Grade-B) LDC Examination.

7. The Respondent submitted that in respect of point no.1 of the RTI Application, the Appellant was duly informed that the same is available on their website, this in public domain. Similarly, upon the directions of the FAA, the Appellant was provided with a revised reply to point no.4 of the RTI Application on 15.01.2024 stating that answer keys as desired therein are available on the website of the UPSC., As regards point no.3 of the RTI Application, the Respondent asserted that since the Apex Court has exempted disclosure of conventional type papers, therefore the answer sheet sought for by the Appellant could not have been provided.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that no scope of action is pertinent in the matter with respect to the replies provided by the CPIO to points 1, 2, 4 & 5 of the RTI Application, as the same is as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

However, with respect to point no.3 of the RTI Application, concededly, a perusal of the relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar reveals that it specifically deals with the question of disclosure of evaluated answer sheets of the UPSC Civil Services Examination. The Apex Court in the said judgment after noting the problems in showing evaluated answer sheets of the UPSC Civil Services Examination as recorded in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC went on to decide as under:

"(10) Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Emphasis Supplied Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters."

Further, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC determined answers to the following question framed therein:

"12. Whether the petitioners are right in contending that the method of moderation of marks applied by UPSC in evaluating answer sheets of the candidates pertaining to Civil Services (Main) Examination is arbitrary and illegal and that the method of scaling of marks applied by UPSC was held to be arbitrary and illegal by Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh‟s case (supra)?"

9. Now, since the Respondent has only vaguely mentioned that 'The copy of evaluated answer sheet (Paper-3) (of conventional /descriptive nature) is neither provided to the candidates nor to any third party..' and has sort to rely on the Angesh Kumar judgment without explaining how or what aspect of the same is applicable to the facts of the instant Page 4 of 5 case, the Commission is at a loss to comprehend the applicability of the ratio of the averred judgment to the disclosure of answer script of a particular question paper of Combined SO (Grade-B) LDC Examination.

10. Having observed as above, the Commission directs the CPIO to revisit point no.3 of the RTI Application and provide the available information to the Appellant, free of cost, after redacting the names and identifying particulars of any third party (examiners/evaluators etc.) that may figure therein. The redaction of the third-party credentials shall be carried out by the CPIO in consonance with Section 8(1)(g) & (j) read with Section 10 of the RTI Act. The said direction shall be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

11. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 14.05.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Union Public Service Commission, US & CPIO, (RTI Cell), Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069

2. Abhinav Singh Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)