Central Information Commission
Dr. Parveen Goel vs Union Public Service Commission on 26 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000549 dated 5.5.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Dr. Parveen Goel
Respondent - Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
Heard & Decision announced: 26.7.2010
Facts:
By an application of 20.1.09 Dr. Parveen Goel of Hissar, Haryana applied to the CPIO Shri Rajesh Gupta, UPSC seeking the following information:
"1. Who were the experts and their institute?
2. How many marks have been assigned to CV proforma annexure A (as circulated by UPSC and the Ministry) for deputation posts and how many to personal talk.
3. Out of CV, how many marks to -
a. Item 14 - Additional Qualifications etc. / trainings (in line of objectives of institute i.e. Welfare, Ethics and Jurisprudence) b. Item 14 - work experience over and above prescribed in the Vacancy Circular / Advertisement (in line of objectives of institute i.e. Welfare, Ethics and Jurisprudence).
4. How much total marks, under CV, under item 14, under item 16 and personal talk have been allotted to me and other candidates.
5. Certified copy of the sheet with marks and comments of the experts / members."
To this Dr Goel received a point-wise response from CPIO Shri Rajesh Gupta, Under Secretary UPSC dated 16.2.09 informing Dr. Parveen Goel as follows:
"1. Individual identities of Advisors / Experts can not be revealed and the same has been upheld by the CIC.
2. 50 marks have been assigned to CV (bio-data) and 100 marks have been assigned to personal talk for making selection for appointment to deputation posts.
3. (a & b) - 15 marks have been assigned for additional academic qualifications, professional training and work experience over and above the required experience.
4. The information sought at S. Nos. 4 & 5 can not be shared in terms of the provisions of Sec. 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as it involves information about other persons and has been retained in this office in fiduciary relationship."
Upon this, Dr. Parveen Goel has moved an appeal dated 24.2.09 before Appellate Authority Shri Rajeev Srivastava, pleading that "information sought can be provided as has been directed by CIC in an another similar case. CIC dated 30.1.2008 : Shri Shailendra Verma vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NCPL) Mumbai - "In the present case information sought is clearly information on a public activity which is selection for the post of HRM on 13th & 14th Sept., 2006." Shri Rajeev Srivastava has decided as follows:
"I have called for the file in which the CPIO had taken decision in this matter and also called for his comments. I have also gone through the original RTI application of the Appellant as also his appeal, and decide that in the light of comments of the CPIO above, there is no need to issue any direction to CPIO."
The appeal was heard on 26.7.2010 with arrangement for videoconference with NIC, Hissar. Only CPIO Shri Rajesh Gupta UPSC is present in CIC chambers. Although appellant Dr. Parveen Goel had been informed by Notice dated 7.7.2010 regarding the hearing he has opted not to be present.
Shri Rajesh Gupta submitted that the names of Experts are held in fiduciary capacity, since the Experts provide these in confidence. Besides, insofar as marks are concerned, Shri Rajesh Gupta cited a decision of this Commission in CIC/WB/A/2009/000114; Raj Bahadur vs. UPSC of 27.4.'10, in which we have held that the break up of marks in the personality test cannot be disclosed. He also displayed the method of storing such notes after a discussion of the kind mentioned by Dr. Parveen Goel, which information is held in sealed cover.
DECISION NOTICE We have held in a number of decisions that the relation of an examiner with the examining organization falls squarely within the definition of fiduciary relationship and, therefore, exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(e). Therefore, the response provided by the CPIO to appellant Dr. Parveen Goel with regard to question No. 1 and the latter part of question No. 5 also qualifies for exemption and the refusal of this information is, therefore, upheld. However, we note that the order of Appellate Authority Jt. Secretary Shri Rajeev Srivastava is not a speaking order. The appeal has been dismissed somewhat summarily on the grounds that Jt. Secretary Shri Srivastava has examined the file and taken a decision. The reasons for arriving at this decision are nowhere described. For this reason, the order of Shri Rajeev Srivastava in File No. 2(61)(1)/2009/ADT-2. is set aside and the appeal remanded to him for examination in light of the decisions of this Commission In this context the attention of appellate authority is invited to the orders of this Commission in File No. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00308 Pramod Kumar Gupta vs. Canara Bank, P&D Wing decided on 28.8.'06, in which we have held as follows:
"CPIO and the appellate authority have erred in interpretation of the provisions of the Act and its effective implementation in true spirit of total transparency in functioning of the public bodies. The outcomes of the examination process should be put in public domain so that the affected persons can have access to it. While the answer sheets are not to be disclosed for reasons already given in several decisions of the Commission, mark sheets and model answers to the set questions, if prepared, should be disclosed1 after the entire process is complete."
Again, in YB Sharma vs. Staff Selection Commission (CIC/WB/C/2007/00705), we have in a more detailed examination held as follows in our decision of 30.06.'09:
1Underlined by us In citing our Decision cited in the orders of appellate authority Shri L. Vishwanathan has stated that "Central Information Commission vide their decision dated 30.4.2007 has stated that no details of conducting of examination could be given" We find that in this Decision in complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/0011 Sujit Pal vs. SSC we have simply reiterated our Full Bench Decision in the clubbed Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2006/00223, Appeal Nos.
CIC/WB/A/2006/00469 & 00394 and Appeal Nos. CIC/OK/A/2006/00266, 00058,00066 & 00315 dated 25.2.2007, which primarily upholds the right of examination authorities to withhold copies of answer sheets. It is, therefore, incorrect for Shri L. Vishwanathan, Dy. Secretary, SSC to hold that we have in any case held that any details of the examination process notably the identity of an Examination Board and disclosability of mark sheets cannot be disclosed, other than what we have specifically stated. On the other hand, we have in our decisions repeatedly held that the law demands disclosure of mark sheets, which in this case have not been provided. Mark sheets are a matter of public information and cannot be construed as third party2, since these are not expected to be held in confidence, nor is this personal information by any definition of the term, which would render it exempt under sub sec. (j) of Sec.
8(1). In the same manner, the number and names of candidates who appeared for interview in a public examination cannot be treated as confidential information since this is a consequence of the results of the written examination."
Appellate authority Shri Rajeev Srivastava will then dispose of this appeal with a reasoned order in view of the specific information sought, after taking into account the admissibility of disclosure in light of these decisions read with the decision cited by CPIO in the hearing, which is with specific reference to the breakup of marks obtained by candidates in the personality test which we have held to be third party information of a private nature. The appeal is disposed of accordingly Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of charge to the parties.
2Highlighted by us for emphasis (Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 26.7.2010 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 26.7.2010