Central Information Commission
Mr. D. Radha Krishna vs Union Public Service Commission (Upsc) on 29 October, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00665 dated 16.5.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Mr. D. Radha Krishna,
Respondent - Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
Facts:
By an application of 18.12.06 Shri D. Radha Krishna of Vishakhapatnam applied to Shri V.P. Singh, Jt. Secretary (Exams), UPSC seeking the following information:
"1. How many marks I scored i.e. in written test and interview?
2. How many total marks were scored by each finally selected Physically Handicapped (PH) candidates i.e. all selected PH candidates marks individually?
3. Where will the vacancy, if any, arising due to resignation by any PH after joining go i.e. either to the next recruitment or to the waiting list, if any?"
To this he received a response on 12.1.07 from the CPIO as follows:
"1. He has secured 62 and 40 marks in written test and PT respectively.
2. The information sought by the candidate Shri D. Radha Krishna, under Point No. 2, forms part of Commission's crucial secrets and intellectual property under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005. The information requested by him is in the nature of Secret documents under Sec. 8(2) of RTI Act 2005 and there being no public interest requiring its disclosure, it can not be disclosed since the disclosure would harm the protected interests. It is, further, stated that the disclosure of this information shall irreparably undermine the integrity, strength and efficacy of the competitive interview systems of paramount significance conducted by the UPSC.
3. If some PH candidate resigns from his/her job within the operating life of reserve panel, the reserve panel will be operated."
In his first appeal of 29.1.07 Shri Radha Krishna, while thanking First Appellate Authority Shri Biresh Kumar for having obtained answers to points 1 & 3, pleaded that he may be given an answer also to point No.2. In support of this 1 plea he cited the decision of this Commission in the case of Shri Rajnish Singh Choudhary in Decision No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00622. In this appeal, however, he also expanded on the information sought by framing his question as follows:
1. "How many PH candidates resigned after being selected as APFC (Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner in EPFO) in APFC 2004?
2. What is the maximum mark for Written Test and also for Interview?
3. What is the operating life period of reserve panel for APFC 2004 and also disclose the names of reserve panel?"
Upon this, Shri Biresh Kumar in his order of 5.3.07 directed as follows:
"Through the instant appeal the appellant wants this information in order to know his position vis-à-vis his performance in order to rectify the past mistakes for doing better in future. In support of his appeal he has also cited the case of Shri Rajnish Kumar Choudhary in which the Central Information Commission directed to disclose cut off marks in the recruitment of APFC 2002 examination.
The appellant appeared in the RT for the post of APFC 2004 held on 12.12.2004 and in the interview held on 7.10.2005. The final result was declared on 20.10.2005. The operative life period of the Reserve Panel is 18 months in normal case and 24 months in exceptional circumstances from the date of finalization of IBR (i.e. 20.10.2005 in this case). As such, the Reserve Panel is still operative. The case of Shri Rajnish Singh Choudhary cited by the appellant pertained to earlier recruitment of APFC 2002 and the decision of CIC was to disclose the cut off marks as applicable after the expiry of time duration of the Reserve Panel, which had expired at that point of time. Therefore, the case of Shri Rajnish Singh Choudhary cannot be applied in the present case of APFC 2004 in which the Reserve Panel has not outlived its validity. The information on cut off marks has, therefore, been rightly denied to the appellant Shri D. Radha Krishna.
In this appeal, Shri D. Radha Krishna has also sought further new information on three points and has remitted the fee for the same under RTI Act 2005. It is not desirable on his part to seek basic new information through an appeal and as such his request being not addressed to CPIO cannot be entertained at this stage."2
A second First Appeal followed this also to Shri Biresh Kumar by Shri Radha Krishna, pleading as follows:
"In any organization particularly like UPSC transparency and accountability in recruitment process increase the integrity, strength and efficacy of the body. No doubt we have unwavering faith in your recruitment. I am not asking or raising doubts about selection list. Still I want my status where I stood in the entire list of candidates called for interview. During interview my age was more than 30 years. And I am also an orthopaedically handicapped person. Keeping in view all these circumstances and on humanitarian ground, please provide the information of marks of all selected physically handicapped candidates category wise."
Shri Radha Krishna then moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"Whatever disclosed by UPSC about Reserve Panel (which I never asked for as a supportive to their reply they mentioned it, that too in vague) is also ambiguous. They informed that the operative life period of Reserve Panel is 18 months in normal case and 24 months in exceptional circumstances. But UPSC never disclosed whether APFC 2004 falls under normal case or exceptional case causing uncertainty in lifetime of reserve panel i.e. 18 months or 24 months."
The appeal was heard on 27.10.2008. The following are present:
Appellant Shri D. Radha Krishna Respondents Shri Naresh Kaushik, Advocate Ms. Amita Kalkal, Advocate Shri Satish Dayanandan, Advocate Ms. Kalpana, Jt. Secretary UPSC Shri Naresh Kumar, Learned Counsel for UPSC submitted that because the examination process is now complete, the cut off marks of all Physically Handicapped (PH) candidates have in fact been provided to appellant Shri Radha Krishna. He submitted that this would also help appellant Shri Radha Krishna to determine as to where his weakness lay, whether in the written 3 examination or in the interview based upon a comparison of his own marks and those of successful physically handicapped candidates.
Appellant Shri Radha Krishna insisted, however, what he wanted was the marks with regard to each of these candidates. Upon this Ms. Kalpana, Jt. Secretary, UPSC submitted that this is the third party information held by UPSC in confidence. Disclosure of these marks has been considered by the UPSC to amount to invasion of a candidate's privacy.
The issue before us is therefore, clearly one: - whether the mark sheet of the individual physically handicapped candidates is discloseable under the RTI Act, 2005.
DECISION NOTICE In this matter we would refer to our Decision in Shri Narender Yadav vs. Delhi High Court in appeal No CIC/WBA/2007/00124 announced on 13.12.'07. In this case, by an application of 16.11.06 assigned ID No. 97, Shri Narender Yadav of Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi sought the following information from the Jt. Registrar (Estt), & PIO Delhi High Court:
"Mark sheet of DJS (main) Examination held on 4th & 5th March, 2006, RollNo.131.
Mark sheet of DJS (Written) Examination held on 9th & 10th Sept. 2006.
And also provide cutoff marks in both aforesaid Examinations.
Period for which information asked for: 4th March, 2006 to 3rd November, 2006."
After initial refusal of information by CPIO, and on receipt of a notice of hearing in 2nd appeal before us, Hon'ble The Chief Justice directed that the matter be placed before a Committee consisting of the Hon'ble Ms. Gita Mittal J., Sh. A.K. Sikri, J. and Shri Mukul Mudgal, J. In their submission of Oct 30, 2007, the Hon'ble Justices recommended as follows:
4"The Committee has been consistently directing disclosure of marks and other non confidential information to the candidates of Delhi Judicial Service Examination, Delhi High Judicial Service Examination and other examinations conducted by this Court. Precedents in the form of information supplied by the Public Information Officer of this Court pursuant to the directions of the Committee may kindly be seen at Flag 'X'.
The confidentiality clause in Rule 5 (c) of Delhi High Court (Right to Information) Rules 2006 cannot be invoked to decline disclosure of marks obtained by a candidate in an examination. On the other hand, a candidate is entitled to know the marks obtained in an examination.
We are of the opinion that the information sought by the appellant ought to be supplied to him under intimation to the Central Information Commission."
The matter having been succinctly clarified by the recommendations of a Committee of Hon'ble Justices in terms of an application to the Delhi High Court, we come to the conclusion that mark sheets of successful candidates in a public examination cannot be construed to be third party information held in confidence since it is on that basis that the very public action of appointment to public service is made. The information sought by appellant Shri D. Radha Krishna in this specific regard will therefore be provided to him within ten working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice. The appeal is therefore allowed to this extent.
Reserved in the hearing, this Decision is announced in open chamber this twenty-ninth day of September 2008. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 29.10.2008 5 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 29.10.2008 6