Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Shri M. Venkateswara Prasad vs Staff Selection Commission (Ssc), ... on 17 June, 2009

                  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                   Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2007/00794 dated 12.11.2007
                       Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18


Complainant -Shri M. Venkateswara Prasad
Respondent       Staff Selection Commission (SSC),
                 Dep't. of Personnel & Training (DoPT)

Facts:

By an application of 30.10.06, received on 21.11.06, Shri M. Venkateswara Prasad of Kadiri (A.P.) applied to the CPIO / Regional Director, SSC seeking the following information:

"1. I want to know how many marks that I have obtained in each of these exams (subject wise)

2. What are the cut off (least marks) so that he who secures these marks barely selects for main exam of interview or job) marks to each of these 5 exams for mains, for interview and for job. Kindly furnish these details according to category such of OC, OBC, SC, ST, Ex-servicemen, PH

3. Send me marked Xerox copies of my answer sheets of all these (conventional) exams.

4. Also send me marked answer sheets of those 5 candidates who are at the bottom of list when compared to marks obtained by them for each of main exam, interview and job. The last candidates answer sheet must be in Hard copy (Xerox copy) remaining answer sheets should be in soft copy (scanned copies in compact dist). These details should be of OBC category of Southern Region of all the 5 exams mentioned above.

5. What are the instructions to evaluators for evaluation of conventional arithmetic examinations of combined graduate level (main) examination 1999.

6. How you are going to charge for one page of Xerox copy and one page of scanned file.

7. Kindly give me concise report on paper and complete report on compact disc.

I will bear the expenditure for your service. Kindly send me the details as early as possible."

To this he received a response on 12.12.06, as follows:

"the process of conducting of examination is a confidential activity and the detailed of which could not be disclosed in larger public interest."

In so refusing the information, CPIO Shri V. K. Aggarwal, US had invoked Article 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, on appeal, which was moved by appellant Shri M. Venkateswara Prasad on 30.1.07, Shri L. Vishvanathan, Director, SSC in his order of 8.5.07 has directed as follows:

"Your appeal has been examined in the Commission. As far as information at S. No. (iii), (iv) & (v) above sought by you, your attention is invited to CIC's decision dated 23.6.2006 in appeal No. 71/IC(A/2006 F. No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00059 made by Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh (copy enclosed). The CIC has ruled that the process of conduct of examination is a confidential activity, the detail of which should not be disclosed in public interest. The outcome of the process, should, however, be disclosed. Since information regarding S. No. iii, iv & v are related to process of result, the same cannot be provided to you.

The information relating to S. No. I & ii will be furnished soon subject to their availability as per the record retention schedule of the Commission for maintenance of these records."

Appellate authority has thus in fact set aside the order of CPIO. Subsequently by a letter of 17.1.08 Appellate Authority Shri L. Vishvanathan, Director, SSC has supplied the following information to Shri Venkateswara Prasad :

"1. You are further informed that the cut off marks and the marks obtained by you (roll number 6120763) category OBC in Scheme 'A' of the Combined Main Graduate Level Examination, 2004 are as under:

Asstt. Cut off marks for written Cut off marks for 373 Stream written exam for OBC Marks obtained by you 352 CBI etc. Cut off marks for written Cut off marks for 383 Stream written exam for OBC Marks obtained by you 372

2. In Scheme 'B' you had secured 32 marks in Paper-II of the above said exam, whereas cut off marks fixed by the 2 Commission in Paper-II for OBC candidates was 72. As such your paper-I was not evaluated.

3. In combined Graduate Level Examination, 1999, the cut off marks fixed by the Commission and the marks obtained by you (Roll No. 6120120) in Scheme 'A' of the examination, were as under :

Asstt. Stream Cut off marks for written Cut off marks 311 for written exam for OBC Marks obtained by you 182 CBI etc. Cut off marks for written Cut off marks 316 Stream for written exam for OBC Marks obtained by you 191

4. In Section Officer (Audit) Examination 2001, the cut off marks fixed by the Commission in Paper-1 for evaluation of Paper II for OBC candidates was 134 and the marks obtained by you (roll No. 6060962) was 114. As such your paper-II was not evaluated.

5. In Section Officer (Audit) Examination 2005 the cut off marks fixed by the Commission in Paper-1 for evaluation of Paper II for OBC candidates was 127 and the marks obtained by you (roll No. 6120258) was 114. As such your paper II was not evaluated.

6. In Tax Assistant Examination, 2004 the cut off marks fixed by the Commission in Paper I for evaluation of Paper II for OBC candidates was 123 and the marks obtained by you ( roll Number 6060457) was 117. As such your paper II was not evaluated."

The appeal was heard through videoconference on 17.6.2008. The following are present :

Appellant at NIC Studio Anantapur, AP Sh. M. Venkateswara Prasad Respondent at CIC Studio, New Delhi.

Ms. Gayatri Sharma, Dy. Secy. / Appellate Authority.

Appellant Shri Venkateswara Prasad confirmed that he has in fact received the letter of 17.1.08 from Shri L. Vishwanathan. However, he stated that answers to Questions (iii), (iv) & (v) must also be provided to ensure that the public's confidence in the examination system of the SSC is upheld.

Ms. Gayatri Sharma Dy. Secy / Appellate Authority, SSC on the other hand submitted that the information disclosed has been in line with the Commission's understanding of CIC's decision on the subject. It is for this reason that in line with the decision of this Commission in Appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00793 decided on 13.11.06 the information sought by appellant has been partly conceded in the orders of Director Shri L. Vishwanathan of 8.5.07 and the information supplied through the order of 17.1.08.

DECISION NOTICE In our Decision in Complaint No. CIC/WB/C2006/00223; Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 and Appeal Nos. CIC/OK/A/2006/00266/00058/00066/00315 Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh & Ors vs. CBSE and Ors, we have taken the following decision regarding disclosure of answer sheet:

38. There are various types of examinations conducted by public authorities which could be either public or limited examinations. Examinations are conducted for various purposes viz. (i) for admission to educational institutions, (ii) for selection and appointment to a public office, (iii) for promotion to higher classes in educational institutions or in employment etc. There are institutions like UPSC, Staff Selection Commission, CBSE etc, the main function of which is only to conduct examinations. Many public authorities, as those in the present appeals like Jal Board, Railways, Lok Sabha Secretariat, DDA, whose main function is not of conducting examinations, do so either to recruit fresh candidates for jobs or for promotion of existing staff. Thus these public authorities conduct both public as well as departmental examinations.

39. In regard to public examinations conducted by institutions established by the Constitution like UPSC or institutions established by any enactment by the Parliament or Rules made there under like CBSE, Staff Selection Commission 1 , Universities., etc, the function of which is mainly to conduct examinations and which have an 1 Highlighted by us for ease of reference 4 established system as fool-proof as that can be, and which, by their own rules or regulations prohibit disclosure of evaluated answer sheets or where the disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would result in rendering the system unworkable in practice and on the basis of the rationale followed by the Supreme Court in the above two cases, we would like to put at rest the matter of disclosure of answer sheets. We therefore decide that in such cases, a citizen cannot seek disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act, 2005.

40. Insofar as examinations conducted by other public authorities, the main function of which is not of conducting examinations, but only for filling up of posts either by promotion or by recruitment, be it limited or public, the rationale of the judgments of the Supreme Court may not be applicable in their totality, as in arriving at their conclusions, the above judgments took into consideration various facts like the large number of candidates, the method and criteria of selection of examiners, existence of a fool-proof system with proper checks and balances etc. Therefore, in respect of these examinations, the disclosure of the answer sheets shall be the general rule but each case may have to be examined individually to see as to whether disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would render the system unworkable in practice. If that be so, the disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets could be denied but not otherwise.

However, while doing so the concerned authority should ensure that the name and identity of the examiner, supervisor or any other person associated with the process of examination is in no way disclosed so as to endanger the life or physical safety of such person. If it is not possible to do so in such cases, the authority concerned may decline the disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets u/s 8 (1) (g).

41. In some of the cases before us, it was argued that there is no question of revealing the identity of an examiner when it is a computer based examination and OMR sheets are issued as in such cases, the assessment is done by the computer. Although the use of this technique is resorted to only where there are large numbers of examinees appearing, the disclosure of evaluated answer sheets in such cases is unlikely to render the system unworkable and as such the evaluated answer sheets in such cases will be disclosed and made available under the Right to Information Act unless the providing of such answer sheets would involve an infringement of copyright as provided for under Section 9 of the Right to Information Act. The same 5 analogy, which is applicable in most examinations, will mutatis mutandis apply in case of an examination conducted with optical marking system.

We have, therefore, held that SSC is one such organization, which can claim exemption from disclosure of answer sheets. This decision, however, would not apply to the information sought at Q. No. 5 of the present RTI application that read as follows:

What are the instructions to evaluators for evaluation of conventional arithmetic examinations of combined graduate level (main) examination 1999.?

In fact the disclosure of such information would be helpful both for those monitoring the examination system and for those subjecting it to public scrutiny, which in our view is essential for ensuring full accountability in any public service. For this reason, in addition to the information already disclosed, we hereby direct that the information sought at Q. No. 5 of the RTI application of Shri Venkateswara Prasad may be provided to him within twenty working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. The appeal is thus allowed in part. There will be no costs.

Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 17.6.2009 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 Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 17.6.2009 6