Central Information Commission
B Thirunavukkarasu vs Chief Secretariat, Rti Returns on 22 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CSRTI/C/2024/610466
B Thirunavukkarasu ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Superintendent (Exam Cell),
Department Of Personnel &
Administrative Reforms, (Personnel
Wing) Secretariat, Puducherry - 605001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.09.2025
Date of Decision : 19.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.01.2024
CPIO replied on : 19.02.2024
First appeal filed on : Nil
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.03.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.03.2024
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an (online) RTI application dated 08.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"A)The Chief Information Commission vide its CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/614958 in Shailendra Kumar Singh v. PIO, EPFO has conveyed its Decision via Order dated 08.06.2018 stating that the defences put forward in the UPSC vs Angesh Kumar and CBSE case is that disclosure of such information would result in chocking system etc. are not available to this respondent authority(EPF EO/AO LDCE) as the candidates appeared for this promotion qualification examination were around 3000 and answer sheets sought were about four qualified candidates who got promotion through LDCE. So, Please provide and allow to inspect the answer sheets of mine bearing the Hall Ticket No.513-P. B) Please provide the answer evaluation key for both Paper-1 and Paper-2 prepared for evaluating the answer scripts.
C)Please provide the authenticated copy of the Mark list of all candidates (Year wise) who appeared for LDCE along with their date of birth, date of joining, marks obtained in Paper-1 and Paper-2 which is used for drawing Provisional select list notified on 28.11.2023 (Notification No.A.34012/1/2023/DP&AR(Exam))."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 19.02.2024 stating as under:
"In respect of information sought for at sl. no. 1, it is stated that the Honorable 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 Anr. versus T.R. Rajesh) held that the evaluated Conventional answer sheets are exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the CIC in its decision No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2022/658967 dated 04.07.2023, has also adjourned sine die the matter regarding decision of sharing answer scripts (descriptive) citing the stay order of Delhi High Court in W.P(C) 17101/2022 & CM APPL.54278/2022 dated 04.08.2023 in the matter of UPSC Vs. Ms. Kavitha Panicker & Anr. Hence, the information Page 2 of 6 sought for could not be furnished. However, the applicant can view his marks in the recruitment website link hps://recruitment.py.gov.in/DepartmentalExam/ViewMark by following the steps mentioned in the notice available in the website link hps://recruitment.py.gov.in/ Administration/Files/Render File/19.
In respect of information sought for sl. no. 2, it is stated that answer sheet evaluation key for evaluation of answer script is not available with this public authority. Hence, information sought for could not be furnished.
In respect of information sought for at sl.no. 3, it is stated that as per the CIC decision CIC/UPSCM/A/2017/122611 dated 19.07.2018 in Shri Vinay Arora Vs UPSC, information sought for regarding marks of other candidates appeared in the exam are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI, Act, 2005. Further, the information sought for will amount to creation of information. Hence, the same could not be provided."
3. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide its order dated 05.03.2024, held as under.
"It is noted that there was a delay of 10 days in disposing the RTI application dated 08.01.2024, which should have been avoided. The PIO is directed to be prompt in disposal of the RTI application in future so that first-appeal is not filed on the ground of non-receipt of reply. Since, the PIO has responded, though belatedly, nothing survives in the appeal. With this the first appeal stands disposed."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent Page 3 of 6 Respondent: Shri M S Sudhakar, PIO-cum-Superintendent, appeared through video conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Complaint on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 09.03.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 15.09.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Complainant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"...
...
6. It is humbly submitted that with respect to information sought for at sl.no.1 regarding inspection of his own answer sheet. It is submitted that 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 Anr. versus T.R. Rajesh) held that the evaluated Conventional answer sheets are exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the Hon'ble CIC in its decision No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2022/658967 dated 04.07.2023, has also adjourned sine die the matter regarding decision of sharing answer scripts (descriptive) citing the stay order of Delhi High Court in W.P(C) 17101/2022 & CM APPL.54278/2022 dated 04.08.2023 in the matter of UPSC Vs. Ms. Kavitha Panicker & Anr. However, it is stated that as per the order of the Hon'ble CIC in order No. CIC/UTPON/A/2024/641784 dated 07.08.2025 in a similar case, the marks of the Appellant in Paper-I and Paper-II with a detailed breakup of each section or compartment will be furnished.
7. It is humbly submitted that with respect to the information sought for at sl. no. 2, it is stated that the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for Promotion to the post of Assistant is of Descriptive type and there is no evaluation key for evaluation of answer script. Hence, information sought for could not be furnished and it was informed to the Appellant that information was not available.
8. It is humbly submitted that with respect to the information sought for at sl. no. 3, it is stated that the overall mark-list of all the candidates was published in the Exam Cell recruitment portal in the link "https://recruitment.py.gov.in/files/24/ldce-for-promotion-to-the-post-of-Page 4 of 6
assistant-result"and it is now in public domain. Further, it is submitted that the applications for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination were received and processed manually. Hence, information sought for regarding date of birth and date of joining requires compilation of data. However, if the Appellant requires any information of any particular candidate, he may inspect the applications and get the required data.
9. In view of the above facts, the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the Second Appeals and render justice."
7. Further, the Respondent volunteered to facilitate inspection of records to the Complainant on point Nos. 1 of the RTI application and also to provide order of merit (category-wise) in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar Vs. PIO, Registrar, District and Session Court, Pune and Ors. (WRIT PETITION NO. 9648 OF 2021) dated 11.11.2024.
Decision
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that point- wise reply has been given to the Complainant vide letter dated 19.02.2024. Besides, the Respondent had filed detailed written submissions dated 15.09.2025, contents of the same are placed on record in the preceding paragraphs and copy of the same is also marked to the Complainant.
9. At the outset, the Commission finds no mala fide intention on part of the PIO. The denial was based on judicial and statutory grounds. There has been some delay in disposal of the RTI application, which the FAA has already cautioned against. However, during the hearing, the PIO volunteered to allow inspection of the Complainant's own examination records and to provide reservation category-wise (including unreserved) order of merit. Such proactive disclosure is in line with the objectives of the RTI Act. In view of this, the Respondent PIO is advised to facilitate inspection of the Complainant's own examination-related records, after giving prior intimation of the schedule and also provide the category-wise order of merit, if available on record, free of cost. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Appellant by the PIO telephonically and in writing well in advance. The Page 5 of 6 above actions shall be completed by the Respondent PIO within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
THE FAA, Government of Puducherry, Department Of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, (Personnel Wing) Secretariat, Puducherry - 605001 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)