Central Information Commission
Shri Ranvijay Singh vs Union Public Service Commission (Upsc) on 26 February, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00996 & 997 both dated 1-5-2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Ranvijay Singh
Respondent: Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
Decision Announced on 26.2.2010
FACTS
These are two appeals moved by Shri Ranvijay Singh of Allahabad before the UPSC, which have come before us in second appeal.
File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00996 In his application of 23-10-07 received in UPSC on 29-10-07 Shri Ranvijay Singh has posed the following six questions:
"1. Please provide information:
That on the basis of the above standards, deciding whether a candidate is fit or otherwise for UPSC after a general discussion of 25-30 minutes (which includes 5-8 minutes for initial formalities), is a difficult task. Whether any training is provided to Board Members (including its Chairman) or a workshop is organized before conducting interviews so that Board Members (including Chairman) can do justice and chances of committing any mistakes does not arise or the Board Members are Experts in their trades.
2. Please provide information: -
A candidate obtains say 180-200 marks (for example) in a particular year on the basis of educational qualifications, his capabilities on social ability and social eventualities, physical alertness, capability to handle comments, ability to give clear and correct results, to give conclusive decisions, in depth knowledge of his trade, leadership and his ability to have social gatherings, whereas only after one year he obtains say only 140-150 marks (for example). The above abilities are of permanent nature and develop with time gap. Please clarify why it so happens when the candidates appear for the next time with more prepares to obtain more marks.
3. Please provide information :-
What is the procedure for giving marks in interview / viva voce. Whether separate marks are given by each of the Board Members and their average is given to the candidate, or Board members only recommend and the final marks are granted by the Chairman. If the recommendations of the Board Members are contrary to the decision of the Chairman, whether Chairman 1 is bound to accept the recommendations of the Board Members or not? How the marks are granted to the candidate, if there is difference of opinion between Board Members and its Chairman.
4. Please provide information:
How many candidates appearing for Interview / Viva in Civil Services Exam 2001 were Graduate or Post Graduate in Social Science. How many were Science and Engineering (separately) Graduate / Post Graduate and how many were Commerce Graduate / Post Graduate. What is the average percentage of marks obtained by these candidates (separately for each subject, such as Social Science, Science, Engineering & Commerce etc. ). Please intimate, separately for each subject, as to how many candidates obtained 180 or more marks in the interview and how many were given less than 150 marks. For example, please intimate how many candidates appearing in interview with Science subject were Graduate / Post graduate and were given marks 180 or above as also those who obtained less than 150. (with similar information on other subjects also)
5. Please provide information:
How many candidates, appearing for interview/viva in Civil Services Exam 2006 opted for Hindi Medium and how many opted English Medium. What is the average percentage of marks obtained by each category (separately) in the interview. How many candidates opting English Medium were given 180 or more marks and how many obtained less than 150 marks. Similarly, How many candidates opting Hindi Medium were given 180 or more marks and how many obtained less than 150 marks.
6. Please provide information:
How many candidates appearing in interview/viva for Civil Services Exam 2006 were from rural area i.e. who studied up to Graduation level in District level i.e. places having population of less than 10 lakhs and how many were from Urban area i.e. who Graduated from Universities and from areas having a population of more than 10 lakhs. What is the average of marks obtained by each category and how many obtained 180 or more and how many obtained less than 150 marks."
In his response of 27-11-07 Shri P. Khanna provided the following information to appellant Shri Ranvijay Singh refusing all but one question:
"Point No. 1: Chairman, UPSC takes a meeting of all the Members of all Interview Boards and Advisors and brief them before start of Board on different aspects of the programme of interview.
Point No. 2 & 3: The procedures and standards adopted by UPSC for selection of candidates are sensitive matters and disclosing them will affect selection procedures and its effectiveness. Therefore, the information sought by you cannot be provided.2
Point No. 4, 5 & 6: The Commission does not maintain record of marks / average marks obtained by candidates subject wise, exam wise, background wise. Therefore, this information cannot be provided. "
Upon this Shri Ranvijay Singh moved an appeal on 26-12-07 which was received in the UPSC on 1-1-2008, upon which by his order of 6-2-08 Shri K.S. Bariar, J.S. (P) refused the information sought as follows:
"1. Although above appeal was received in the Commission's Office on 1.1.2008, yet the same could not be decided within 30 days due to excessive work load, other important matters, reasons for cases etc. There is a provision under sec. 19(6) of the RTI Act 2005 that appeal can be decided within extended period not exceeding 45 days from the date of appeal.
2. I have examined the contents of appeal, reply given to appellant by CPIO, UPSC, comments given by concerned Officers of UPSC and provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
3. I have found that appellant has sought information relating to Civil Services Exam 2006 and the CPIO, UPSC has provided the correct and complete information. Accordingly, I have nothing further to add in the above case."
Appellant's prayer in his second appeal before us is as below:
"Appellant is very upset with the marks obtained in Interview / viva . Appellant feels that due to highhandedness of the Interview Board, appellant is passing through such agony. It is. therefore, prayed that after reading the attached documents, direction be given to UPSC to provide entire information sought by appellant and answer sheet, action taken on the request of appellant for re-examination of answer sheets and orders issued by Jt. Secretary UPSC on my application (all attached), in the form originally requested by the appellant in his applications addressed to the UPSC."
File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00997 In his application of 11-12-07 received in UPSC on 14-12-07 Shri Ranvijay Singh has posed the following six questions:
"1. Please provide information on the scaling procedure adopted by the Commission while granting marks on the answers sheets of general studies.3
2. Please provide information as to how many successful candidates obtained less than 120 marks in General Studies paper in Civil Services Main Exam 2006.
3. Please provide information as to how many successful candidates obtained 100 or less marks out of the above candidates who secured less than 120 marks in General Studies first paper.
4. Please provide information as to how many candidates were Graduate or Post Graduate in Social Science out of the candidates mentioned at (2) & (3) above.
5. Please provide information as to how many candidates from the candidates mentioned at (4) above had opted History or Political Science or both as optional subjects.
6. Please provide information whether UPSC does not permits re-valuation of the answer sheets as per procedure adopted by it. (CIC's reply on the previously sought information). Please clarify whether UPSC has powers to revaluate answers sheets or not?"
In his response of 8-1-08 Shri A.K. Khanna provided the following information to appellant Shri Ranvijay Singh refusing four of the six questions. Shri Ranvijay Singh has then moved an appeal on 11-2-08 before Shri K.S. Bariar, which was received in the UPSC on 15-2-2008, upon which by his order of 25-3-08 Shri K.S. Bariar, J.S. (P) dismissed the appeal as follows:
"I have examined the contents of appeal, reply given to appellant by CPIO, UPSC, comments given by concerned Officers of UPSC and provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
I have noted that appellant has sought information relating to scaling pattern and revaluation of answer sheets of Civil Services (Main) Exam 2006 and found that the CPIO, UPSC has provided the correct and complete information. In view of above, I do not consider it necessary to interfere in the above reply."
Appellant Shri Ranvijay Singh's prayer in his second appeal before us is as below:
"It is, therefore, prayed that after reading the attached documents, and keeping in view the status of mind of the appellant, direction be given to UPSC to provide entire information sought by appellant and answer sheet, action taken on the request of appellant for re-valuation of answer sheets (all attached), as requested by the appellant."4
The appeal was heard through Videoconference with Allahabad on 14- 12-2009. The following are present:-
Appellant at NIC Studio Allahabad Shri Ranvijay Singh.
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi Shri Prachish Khanna, DS & CPIO, UPSC.
Shri D. B. Das, US & CPIO, UPSC Shri Naresh Kaushik Advocate Ms. Aditi Gupta Learned Council for respondent Shri Naresh Kaushik submitted that notice of hearing in one of these cases had been received only today and the Commission had no time to examine the appeals. He, therefore, pleaded for an adjournment. When asked, if he had any objection, appellant Shri Ranvijay Singh submitted that adjournment be given after 23-12-2009. The plea for adjournment is, therefore, accepted. Both appeals were then scheduled for 6th January, 2010 at 4.30 p.m. The appeal was heard on 6.1.2010 through videoconference. The following are present.
Appellant: (at NIC Studio, Allahabad) Shri Ranvijay Singh Respondents Shri Naresh Kaushik, Advocate.
Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhry, Advocate.
Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocate.
Shri Prachish Khanna, Dy. Secretary & CPIO. Shri B. Bhattacharya, OSD, UPSC Shri D. B. Das, Under Secretary.
Shri Naresh Kaushik, counsel for respondent submitted a written reply to our appeal notice in both cases conceding that details of information sought by appellant could be provided in certain cases and describing that information in each of these submissions. With regard to file No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00996 these are as follows:
"Union Public Service Commission intends to submit before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission that with regard to Point No.1, in which the appellant has desired to know about the training given to Members and Chairman of the Board of UPSC, that it has been clearly intimated by the CPIO to the appellant through his letter dated 27.11.2007 that Chairman, UPSC take a meeting of all the Members of all Interview Boards and Advisors and brief them before start of Board on several aspects of the programme of interview. All Board Members, including 5 Chairman of the Board are experienced, familiar and experts in the relevant subject. No training programme/workshop is specifically organized for the Board members.
UPSC intends to inform Hon'ble CIC that informed asked by appellant at point No. 2 does not pertain to any written information but is related to personal viewpoint, arguments and advice, which is not covered under RTI Act 2005. Therefore, it is not possible to provide any information to the appellant at Point No. 2.
With regard to Point No. 3, UPSC has to state that there is no written rules/sub rule in the Commission on this issue. Only Board awards the marks to the aspirants.
UPSC wishes to inform Hon'ble CIC that UPSC is not in a position to reply to Point 4, 5 & 6, because UPSC does not maintain record of marks/ average marks obtained by aspirants subject wise, exam wise, background wise. This is covered under sec. 7(9) of the RTI Act. Therefore, UPSC is not bound to provide information on these points. UPSC wishes to bring to the notice of CIC that providing information on points 4, 5 & 6 will affect the working / source of information which is in contravention of Sec. 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005 Therefore, UPSC is not required to provide information on points 4, 5 & 6."
With regard to file No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00997 the information is given below:
"6. UPSC would like to draw the kind attention of Hon'ble Central Information Commission to the information provided to appellant vide letter dated 8.1.2008 of CPIO, UPSC, vide which through Para (i) it has been made clear to the appellant that Scaling / moderation is done in case where it is found necessary. This information is clear and sufficient.
7. UPSC would like to bring to the notice of Hon'ble CIC that UPSC is unable to provide information sought by appellant at points (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) because this Commission does not maintain / keep any such record and it is also not practicable to provide such information under Sec. 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005 because it will adversely affect the source of information.
8. UPSC intends to bring it to kind notice of Hon'ble CIC that information sought by appellant at point (vi) had been provided to appellant through CPIO, UPSC's letter dated 8.1.2008 in which it had been made clear that "in respect to revaluation of answer sheets it is made clear that present system & procedures adopted by the Commission are sufficient for safety and reliability.6
Accordingly, Commission does not revaluate answer sheets on the request of candidates".
Commission would also like to make it clear that there is no provision for revaluation of answer sheets under which request of candidates can be entertained.
UPSC would also like to bring it to the kind notice of CIC that decision taken by UPSC not to revaluate the answer sheets has been upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 3771/2008 - Nimakakayala Geeta Swapna vs. UPSC."
A copy of these statements were scanned and e-mailed to appellant Shri Ranvijay Singh at NIC Studio, Allahabad who agreed that after perusal if he still had further objections he would petition this Commission for another hearing.
DECISION NOTICE We received a letter of 8.1.2010 from appellant Shri Ranvijay Singh on 22.1.2010. With regard to appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00996, after arguing the matter appellant Shri Ranvijay Singh has come to the following conclusion:
"With regard to Points 4, 5 & 6, UPSC has stated that it does not maintain record of marks / average marks obtained by candidates subject wise, exam wise, background wise. In this connection appellant submits that documents available in UPSC, such as Forms filled by successful candidates of Main Exam for appearing in interview and marks sheets issued after declaration of results contain these details and these are maintain through electronic media by the Commission. As such if the Commission provides these details on floppy (on charge basis), appellant can get the desired information. It is therefore prayed to the Hon'ble CIC that necessary orders be issued to the UPSC for providing the same.
On File No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00997, again after arguing the matter appellant Shri Ranvijay Singh has come to the following conclusion:
"If the Commission provides the information on floppy through electronic media, the appellant can obtain the desired information after analysing this information by himself. It is therefore prayed to the Hon'ble CIC that necessary orders be 7 issued to the UPSC for providing this information through electronic media ( floppy )."
From the above, it becomes clear that appellant Shri Ranvijay Singh is now pleading for answers only to his question Nos. 4, 5 & 6 in file no. CIC/WB/A/2008/00996, and (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) in file no. CIC/WB/A/2008/00997. In this matter, therefore, appellant Shri Ranvijay Singh seeks access to only such information as is held by the UPSC, which is his entitlement according to the definition of the RTI u/s 2(j) of the Act. UPSC on the other hand has only argued in its written submissions that no such record, as asked for, is maintained by the UPSC and if an attempt was made to compile this information, it will affect the Commission's working and, therefore, qualify for exemption under sub-section (9) of Sec. 7. Since this plea hinges on application of Sec 7(9) we feel that there is no cause for further hearing in the matter.
Section 7(9) of the RTI Act reads as follows.
"Sec. 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless 1 it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question."
Quite clearly, therefore, this section is not a clause for exemption from disclosure but only a mitigation on the form in which its disclosure is required to be made. The appeal is thus allowed to the limited extent that with regard to questions 4, 5 & 6 in appeal no. CIC/WB/A/2008/00996, and (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) in file no. CIC/WB/A/2008/00997, CPIO Shri Prachish Khanna, Dy. Secretary UPSC will compile and provide only such part of the information, as is held by the UPSC either in CD or in any other convenient form to appellant Shri Ranvijay Singh within twenty working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice, free of charge in accordance with Sec 7 (6). After compilation this information may also be uploaded on UPSC's website as it will be a valuable point of reference for those that have passed through the hallowed portals of UPSC's examination system.
1Underlined by us for illustration of the point made 8 Reserved in the hearing while awaiting the written response of appellant Shri Ranvijay Singh, this appeal is announced on this 26th day of February 2010 in the open chambers. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 26.2.2010 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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 26.2.2010 9