Central Information Commission
Abhishek Siddha vs Union Public Service Commission on 9 June, 2021
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/2019/650473
Abhishek Siddha ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Union Public Service
Commission, RTI Cell, Dholpur
House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110069. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09/06/2021
Date of Decision : 09/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/05/2019
CPIO replied on : 23/05/2019
First appeal filed on : 22/06/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 02/07/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02/09/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.05.2019 seeking information pertaining to Civil Services Main Examination 2018 (Roll No is 1131693):
"Provide following checked answer copies of Civil Services Main Examination 2018;
1. Essay (98) P-I
2.General Studies-I (99) P-II
3.General Studies-II (99) P-III
4.General Studies-Ill (97) P-IV
5.General Studies-IV (97) P-V
6.History-I (30) P-VI
7.History-II (30) P-VII
8. Hindi (04)
9. English (20)"
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 23.05.2019 stating that:-
"..... As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision dated 20.02.2018 in the C.A. No(s). 6159 -6162 of 2013 with C.A. No. 5924/2013, answer sheets of Civil Services (Main) Examination cannot be provided."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.06.2019. FAA's order dated 02.07.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference. Respondent: Paramjit Chadha, US & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO as some of the Public Service Commission's like the Rajasthan PSC has been providing copy of answer scripts since the last two sessions and therefore UPSC should also 2 consider allowing access to the answer scripts on similar footing. He further referred to a judgment of the Apex Court passed in the year 2011 in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay wherein it was held that Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act is not applicable in cases where the candidate is seeking a copy of his won answer script.
The CPIO submitted that the averred judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court provides for the detailed reasons based on which it arrived at the conclusion that UPSC cannot provide access to answer sheets of Civil Services.
Decision The Commission is not in a position to order any relief in the matter as the information sought for in the instant RTI Application is squarely barred from disclosure by the judgment of 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.
Further, considering the contentions of the Appellant during the hearing, his attention is drawn towards para 8 of the averred judgment which clearly 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.
(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, 3 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 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 4 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 in UPSC Civil Services Exam has also assessed the aspect of disclosure of the answer scripts.
Accordingly, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter and upholds the submissions of the CPIO.
5The 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