Central Information Commission
Shri Vivek Tripathi vs Union Public Service Commission(Upsc) on 21 August, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00348 dated 30-3-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Vivek Tripathi, Jhabua (MP)
Respondent: Union Public Service Commission, (UPSC)
FACTS
By an application of 20-11-06 Shri Vivek Tripathi of Jhabua, M.P. applied to the CPIO, UPSC, New Delhi seeking the following information:
1. My marks in English paper.
2. The marks given to me in each question on English paper.
3. List of cut off marks for qualification in Civil Service Main Exam 2005 in English paper of all the candidates including myself, so if there is any discrepancy I can know.
4. What is the procedure for fixing cut off marks?
5. Whether my other answer books have been inspected other then of compulsory subjects.
6. Please show me my answer sheet of English paper.
To this he received a reply on 8-12-06 as follows:
"1. The candidates are not shown the marks obtained by him in qualifying papers because there is no public interest involved.
2. The Commission does not show the marks obtained in each question by him in qualifying papers because there is no public interest involved.
3. &4. The procedure for fixing cut off mark is not informed by the Commission because it will affect the confidentiality of examination procedure and no public interest involved in it.
5. Only Essay, General Studies and Optional Subject papers of those candidates are being examined by the Commission for which the Commission has fixed the minimum qualifying marks. In this connection please refer the note (ii) (Planning of examination), Part-II, B of annexure-I of Main examination Gazette No. 13018/8/2004-A IS (i) dated 4.12.2004.
6. It is not possible to show your answer sheet because there is no public interest involved."
Not satisfied with this reply Shri Tripathi moved his first appeal to the 1st Appellate Authority on 23-12-06, upon which he received the following order from Shri Biresh Kumar, Addl. Secretary, UPSC.
1"The appellant had wanted information on six points through his request dated 20.11.06. The CPIO has given point-wise categorical and reasoned reply. As regards information relating to point No. 1 & 2, it is clear that they pertain to personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and they are covered u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Further, it is not possible for the Commission to show the answer book of English paper of the appellant of Civil Services (Main) Examination 2005 because in an appeal No. ICPB/A-2/CIC/2006 dated 6.2.06 in respect of Ms. Teresa Irish, the Hon'ble Central Information Commission have held that when a candidate seeks for a copy of the evaluated answer papers, either or his/ her on or others, it is purely personal information, the disclosures of which has no relation to any public interest or activity and this was found to have been covered u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Apart from this, in respect of point No. 3, 4 & 5 also, the CPIO has given a reasoned reply which does not warrant any kind of intervention at this level."
The appeal was heard through Videoconference on 21-8-2008. The following are present.
Appellants at NIC Studio, Raisen, MP Shri Vivek Tripathi.
Respondents at NIC Studio, New Delhi.
Shri Prachish Khanna, Dy. Secretary & CPIO, UPSC. Shri Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for UPSC.
Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Advocate Shri A. K. Khanna, Dy. Secretary, UPSC.
Shri Naresh Kaushik, Learned Counsel for UPSC submitted that in keeping with subsequent decisions of this Commission on a question of disclosure this decision had been reviewed and the information sought supplied to appellant Shri Vivek Tripathi through a letter of CPIO Shri Prachish Khanna dated 2-7-08 informing appellant Shri Tripathi as follows:
"In reply to point 1 of your application requesting for marks obtained by you in English (Compulsory) qualifying paper you were informed that the marks obtained by candidates in qualifying papers are not communicated as no public interest is served thereby.
In this regard, it is stated that the Commission has since decided to disclose the marks obtained by the candidates in qualifying papers. Accordingly, it is intimated that you have obtained 59 marks out of 300 marks of English (Compulsory) paper."2
Appellant Shri Tripathi acknowledged that he had indeed received this response but the information provided was incomplete since he was not provided the answers to question Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6.
Learned Counsel Naresh Kaushik submitted that the UPSC does not maintain question-wise marks but has provided the marks, the record of which is being maintained by the Public Authority. So far as questions 3 and 4 are concerned these are requests for cut-off marks on which decision of this Commission for disclosure is under stay in LPA No. 313 of 2007. On the question of answer sheets learned Counsel cited the decision of this Commission in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/1041 Amit Gulia vs. UPSC in which we have directed as follows:
We have heard the arguments and examined the records. It is agreed that the appellant simply wishes to satisfy himself that the answer sheets assigned to him by the UPSC are in fact his answer sheets. These answer sheets are apparently held in a sealed cover by the UPSC. The UPSC would be ready to submit these answer sheets for perusal by us to satisfy ourselves that these are indeed authentic.
Because both parties have since agreed to this means of disposal of the application of Shri Amit Kumar, we agree that both parties may appear before us on 15th Oct., 2007 at 5.30 p.m. with the requisite documents for our inspection of the answer papers in order to come to the requisite conclusion.
Subsequently, these answer sheets were examined in a hearing of 25.1.'07 and the appellant's request satisfied DECISION NOTICE From the above discussion it will be clear that information as held by the UPSC and not stayed from disclosure under the High Court of Delhi's stay order in LPA No. 313 of 2007 has been disclosed. On the question at serial No.6 we have examined our decision in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/1041 in the case of Amit Gulia vs. UPSC. Our decision above drew down from an earlier decision of the full Bench of this Commission in complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2006/00223, Appeal Nos.CIC/WB/A/2006/00469 & 00394 & 3 Appeal Nos.CIC/OK/A/2006/00226; 00058; 00066 & 00315. Para 39 of this Decision Notice reads as follows:
"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, Universities., etc, the function of which is mainly to conduct examinations and which have an 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."
We see no reason to interfere with this decision in the present case. Appellant Shri Vivek Tripathi is advised that if there are further questions arising from the answers that he has received from CPIO, UPSC he is free to move a fresh RTI application before the UPSC to obtain such information. However, on the question of cut-off marks he will have to await the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the above cited writ petition, a decision on which is expected to be announced on 3rd November, 2008.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Announced in the hearing, save the decision regarding question 6 , which was announced in open chamber on 22.8.'08 after studying the decision of this Commission in Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/1041 relied upon by respondent Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 21-8-2008 4 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 K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 21-8-2008 5