Central Information Commission
Navin Singh Rawat vs Union Public Service Commission on 18 August, 2022
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/A/2021/144012
Navin Singh Rawat ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Union Public Service Commission,
RTI Cell, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17/08/2022
Date of Decision : 17/08/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01/06/2021
CPIO replied on : 02/07/2021
First appeal filed on : 04/06/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 04/08/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12/10/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.06.2021 seeking the following information:
"With reverence, it is submitted that I, Navin Singh Rawat serving in AFHQ, Ministry of Defence (Cat-VI) appeared for 'Combined SO's / Stenos (Grade 'B'/Grade 'I') Ltd Deptt Competitive Examination, 2015' for the post of Stenos (Grade 'B') which was held on 17 October 2015 to 19 October 2015. I was allotted Roll No.0003381.1
2. On perusal of result at website, I have been declared not qualified in 'Skill Test' (English Stenography). Whereas at my best knowledge, my skill test went very good. You are requested to please provide me the following information for my necessary action :-
(a). My checked transcription copy;
(b). Copy of original passage dictated to my-batch on 19 October 2015 (09:55 AM batch)) at Ojas Global AcadeMy, A-1/9, kajeev Nagar, Begumpur, Opp Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi-110086 for checking the same with my transcription;."
The CPIO furnished a para wise reply to the appellant on 02.07.2021 stating as follows:-
Point No. (a) :- "Evaluated conventional type of answer sheets cannot be provided as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20/2/2018 in Civil Appeal No.(s) 6159-6162 of 2013 CUPSC Vs Angesh Kumar 86 Other etc.) with CA No. 5924/2013 ( Joint Directors and CPIO and Others Vs TR Rajesh) ." Point No. (b) :- Information sought is available a website of the Commission."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2021. FAA's order dated 04.08.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through intra-video conference. Respondent: B K Singh, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that the information has been wrongly denied to him citing the Angesh Kumar judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the said judgment pertained to only the Civil Services Examinations and not the Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations.
The Commission remarked at this point that the same grounds were argued by another Appellant in the matter of Kavitha Panicker vs. UPSC which was heard shortly prior to the instant case wherein the following submissions were made to amplify her case:2
"The Appellant stated that she has not received the desired information from the CPIO as the copies of Paper I & II received is just the OMR sheet without evaluation and marks and Paper III has been altogether denied on an inappropriate pretext as the Apex Court judgment in Angesh Kumar case is specific to UPSC Civil Services (Prelims) case. She further relied on a decision of the Commission in File No. CIC/POSTS/A/2019/117896-UM dated 24.05.2021 wherein the following was held:
'The Commission at the outset observed that in denying the answer sheet to the Appellants, the Respondent has been citing a decision of the Apex Court, which is neither applicable nor relevant to the examination held by them. Perusal of the decision reveals that the scope of the Apex Court decision in Angesh Kumar‟s case specifically deals with the Competitive exams. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar &Ors in Civil Appeal No. (s) 6159-6162 of 2013 decided on 20.02.2018 had observed that as following:
'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.' The Commission further observes that the issue to access his/ her own answer sheet by a candidate had been long settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. SLP (C) No. 7526/2009 decision dated 9th August, 2011, wherein it was observed that 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. The relevant observations made in the judgment are as under:
'11. The definition of „information‟ in section 2(f) of the RTI 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 section 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-
answer-book and submits it to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer answer-
swer-book is a document or record. When the answer-
answer-book is evaluated by 3 an examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer- answer-book becomes a record containing the 'opinion' of the examiner. Therefore the evaluated answer-
answer-book is also an 'information' 'information' under the RTI Act.'.."
Act.'.."
The CPIO submitted that the evaluated answer sheet was denied based on the inputs of the concerned Section stating the said Paper contains evaluated conventional type of answer sheet and such information is held to be confidential by the UPSC.
Decision:
In pursuance of the Kavitha Panicker case (supra), this bench observed as under:
"The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record has duly taken into consideration the reliance placed by the Appellant on the decision taken by the coordinate bench with respect to the applicability of the Angesh Kumar ratio decidendi to cases where answer sheets of Limited Departmental Competitive Exams is being sought for..."
Further decision in the above case is squarely applicable in the instant case as under:
For better appreciation of the case, the relevant portions of the judgment in the Angesh Kumar matter vide Civil Appeal No(s). 6159-6162 of 2013 with C.A No. 5924/2013 is reproduced hereunder, starting with the issue for determination:
"(3) The respondents-writ petitioners were unsuccessful candidates in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010. They approached the High Court for a direction to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to disclose the details of marks (raw and scaled) awarded to them in the Civil Services (Prelims) Examination 2010. The information in the form of cut-off marks for every subject, scaling methodology, model answers and complete result of all candidates were also sought. Learned Single Judge directed that the information sought be provided within fifteen days. The said view of the Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court..."
Further on, para 8 of the averred judgment clearly records the extract of the counter affidavit filed in the matter of Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar vs. UPSC 4 suggesting the problems in showing evaluated answer books to candidates as under:
"(B) Problems in showing evaluated answer books to candidates.--(i) Final awards subsume earlier stages of evaluation. Disclosing answer books would reveal intermediate stages too, including the so-called 'raw marks' which would have negative implications for the integrity of the examination system, as detailed in Section (C) below.
(ii) The evaluation process involves several stages.
Awards assigned initially by an examiner can be struck out and revised due to (a) totalling mistakes, portions unevaluated, extra attempts (beyond prescribed number) being later corrected as a result of clerical scrutiny, (b) The examiner changing his own awards during the course of evaluation either because he/she marked it differently initially due to an inadvertent error or because he/she corrected himself/herself to be more in conformity with the accepted standards, after discussion with Head Examiner/colleague examiners, (c) Initial awards of the Additional Examiner being revised by the Head Examiner during the latter's check of the former's work, (d) the Additional Examiner's work having been found erratic by the Head Examiner, been rechecked entirely by another examiner, with or without the Head 1 (2013) 12 SCC 489 Examiner again rechecking this work.
(iii) The corrections made in the answer book would likely arouse doubt and perhaps even suspicion in the candidate's mind. Where such corrections lead to a lowering of earlier awards, this would not only breed representations/grievances, but would likely lead to litigation. In the only evaluated answer book that has so far been shown to a candidate (Shri Gaurav Gupta in WP No. 3683 of 2012 in Gaurav Gupta v. UPSC dated 6.7.2012(Del.)) on the orders of the High Court, Delhi and that too, with the marks assigned masked; the candidate has nevertheless filed a fresh WP alleging improper evaluation.
(iv) As relative merit and not absolute merit is the criterion here (unlike academic examinations), a feeling of the initial marks/revision made being considered harsh when looking at the particular answer script in isolation could arise without appreciating that similar standards have been applied to all others in the field. Non-appreciation of this would lead to erosion of faith and credibility in the system and challenges to the integrity of the system, including through litigation.
5(v) With the disclosure of evaluated answer books, the danger of coaching institutes collecting copies of these from candidates (after perhaps encouraging/inducing them to apply for copies of their answer books under the RTI Act) is real, with all its attendant implications.
(vi) With disclosure of answer books to candidates, it is likely that at least some of the relevant examiners also get access to these. Their possible resentment at their initial awards (that they would probably recognise from the fictitious code numbers and/or their markings, especially for low-candidature subjects) having been superseded (either due to inter-examiner or inter-subject moderation) would lead to bad blood between Additional Examiners and the Head Examiner on the one hand, and between examiners and the Commission, on the other hand. The free and frank manner in which Head Examiners, for instance, review the work of their colleague Additional Examiners, would likely be impacted. Quality of assessment standards would suffer.
(vii) Some of the optional papers have very low candidature (sometimes only one), especially the literature papers. Even if all examiners' initials are masked (which too is difficult logistically, as each answer book has several pages, and examiners often record their initials and comments on several pages with revisions/corrections, where done, adding to the size of the problem), the way marks are awarded could itself be a give away in revealing the examiner's identity. If the masking falters at any stage, then the examiner's identity is pitilessly exposed. The 'catchment area' of candidates and examiners in some of these low-candidature papers is known to be limited. Any such possibility of the examiner's identity getting revealed in such a high-stakes examination would have serious implications, both for the integrity and fairness of the examination system and for the security and safety of the examiner. The matter is compounded by the fact that we have publicly stated in different contexts earlier that the paper-setter is also generally the Head Examiner.
(viii) UPSC is now able to get some of the best teachers and scholars in the country to be associated in its evaluation work. An important reason for this is no doubt the assurance of their anonymity, for which the Commission goes to great lengths. Once disclosure of answer books starts and the inevitable challenges (including litigation) from disappointed candidates starts, it is only a matter of time before these examiners who would be called upon to explain their assessment/award, decline to accept further assignments from the Commission. A 6 resultant corollary would be that examiners who then accept this assignment would be sorely tempted to play safe in their marking, neither awarding outstanding marks nor very low marks, even where these are deserved. Mediocrity would reign supreme and not only the prestige, but the very integrity of the system would be compromised markedly."
As it appears from a bare perusal of the foregoing text that there is no mention of an exemption to disclosure of answer sheets of "conventional type" or that of a sweeping effect on all kinds of examinations conducted by UPSC, more specifically, the limited departmental competitive examinations.
Having observed as above, the Commission is not inclined to uphold the denial of the copy of Paper III as sought for in the instant RTI Application.
The CPIO is hereby directed to provide a revised reply to the Appellant incorporating the available information as sought for at para (a) of the RTI Application. The said information shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7