Central Information Commission
Suman Kalyan Ghosh vs Union Public Service Commission on 8 February, 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/2020/698220
Suman Kalyan Ghosh ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Union Public Service
Commission, RII Cell, Dholpur
House, Shahjahan Road, New
Delhi-110069 '..... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07/02/2022
Date of Decision : 07/02/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16/10/2020
CPIO replied on : 10/11/2020
First appeal filed on : 14/11/2020
First Appellate Authority's order : 14/12/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29/12/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2020 seeking the following information;1
"I had appeared civil services (main) examination 2019. The marks I have been given in the Exam is far below my expectation and my performance in the exam. It is my humble request to UPSC to re-evaluate all my General Studies papers including Optional papers and essay papers.
I know it may be little difficult for your part. Still it is my request to UPSC to take Immediate action on my request."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 10.11.2020 stating that "there is no provision of re-evaluation of the evaluated answer-books in the rules of Examination. However keeping in view of the intent of the query raised by you and the spirit of RTI Act, your answer books of all the papers of CS(Main) Examination, 2019 have been re-scrutinised and found that :-
1. No part of any answer has been left unvalued.
2. There is no totaling error.
3. Answer books used are intact.
4. There is no clerical error of any other kind."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.11.2020 stating as under:
"In this reply UPSC demands that everything is all right from their side.
But I am not satisfied with the reply. So, I request you to either
1. Send me the scanned copies of all my UPSC CIVIL (MAIN) EXAM 2019 answer Booklets showing the marks given in given email-id, OR
2. Allow me to physically verify my answer booklets."
FAA's order dated 14.12.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO and observed that the Appellant is asking for new information in his First Appeal.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Arun Kumar, Under Secretary & Rep. of CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant insisted that if the CPIO has come to the conclusion that there are no inadequacies in his answer booklet evaluation, why is the copy of the answer booklet and its inspection thereof being denied to him.
The CPIO pointed out that this information was not a part of his original RTI Application and even otherwise at the behest of the Commission, the CPIO recalled that copy of the Civil Services answer booklets cannot be provided as per the precedent laid down by the Apex Court in the Angesh Kumar matter.
The Appellant argued that as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the Aditya Bandhopadhyay judgment, he is entitled to seek for a copy of his answer booklet under the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset observes that the Appellant did not seek for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the instant RTI Application, instead he asked for revaluation of his answer scripts, to which the CPIO provided certain clarifications in keeping with the letter and spirit if the RTI Act. Later on, the FAA has also aptly observed that the Appellant has asked for new information in his First Appeal which is not permissible under the RTI Act.
Yet, notwithstanding the technical lacunae evinced in the instant matter, the Commission draws the attention of the Appellant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar in Civil Appeal No(s). 6159-6162 of 2013 with C.A No. 5924/2013 wherein para 8 records the extract of the counter affidavit filed in the matter of Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar vs. UPSC 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.3
(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.
(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 4 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 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."
In view of the foregoing, it is essentially clear that the Hob'le Supreme Court while arriving at the decision of precluding disclosure of marks obtained by candidates 5 in UPSC Civil Services Exam has also assessed the aspect of disclosure of answer books.
The reliance placed by the Appellant on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case as the Angesh Kumar judgment is specific to the issue of disclosure of information related to the Civil Services Examinations conducted by UPSC.
The Appellant is advised accordingly for future reference.
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 / 6