Central Information Commission
Mr. Col Debasish Roy vs Union Public Service Commission on 14 January, 2011
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/WB/A/2010/000191SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 14 January 2011
Date of decision : 14 January 2011
Name of the Appellant : Col. Debashish Roy
Col. GS (END), Headquarters,
Western Command,
Pin 908 543, C/o. 56 APO.
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 not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Kulbir Singh, JD & CPIO,
(ii) Imran Farid, US (CSP)
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. Both the parties were present and made the submissions.
3. The Appellant had given a list of nine candidates who had appeared in the Civil Services Examination 2008 and had requested the CPIO to provide a variety of details regarding these candidates, especially in regard to their caste CIC/WB/A/2010/000191SM status and if they had enjoyed any concession or relaxation at the Preliminary Examination stage. The CPIO had not disclosed any information by claiming exemption not only under Section 8(1) (g) and (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act but also by referring to a pending matter before the Supreme Court. The Appellate Authority had endorsed the decision of the CPIO.
4. After carefully considering the facts of the case and the submissions made before us, we find it difficult to accept the arguments offered by the CPIO in denying the information. If it is a fact that these nine candidates had been allowed to take the examination on the ground that they belonged to certain castes or tribes and if they had been recommended for inclusion in the general category on the basis of having cleared the examination on general standards, the desired information must be disclosed in order to ensure greater transparency in the conduct of such important examinations and also to remove all doubts about the inclusion of these candidates in the general category.
5. The Respondents argued that the disclosure of the names of the UPSC officers who had verified the caste certificates might be difficult since such information was not maintained. If it is so, then the CPIO should have mentioned this clearly. It was also argued that the disclosure of the names of officers dealing with the examination like the CSE might endanger their personal safety. This is clearly very far fetched. Merely on the ground of apprehension, the information cannot be denied.
6. Thus, after very carefully considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, we are of the view that the desired information must be disclosed. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide the CIC/WB/A/2010/000191SM desired information to the Appellant in respect of the nine candidates as listed by him in his application within 10 working days from the receipt of this order. This will include if and which benefit/concession/relaxation any of these candidates had availed of in the Preliminary Examination, in case, any of these candidates availed of any concession or relaxation, then the marks they secured in the Preliminary Examination along with the corresponding cut off marks prescribed by the UPSC for the respective category, the names of the officials of the UPSC who had verified the caste certificates of these candidates, copies of the caste certificates, the name of the officials who had verified and submitted to the UPSC that these nine candidates had cleared the examination at general standards without availing any benefit/concession/relaxation meant for the reserved categories to which they belonged and, finally, the photocopy of the list forwarded by the UPSC to the DOPT containing the list of reserved category candidates of the CSE 2008 who had qualified without availing any of the concessions/relaxation admissible to their respective reserve category.
7. The appeal is thus disposed off.
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/WB/A/2010/000191SM (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/WB/A/2010/000191SM