Central Information Commission
Mr. Nilesh Yadav vs Union Public Service Commission on 21 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000492 dated 15.4.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Nilesh Yadav
Respondent - Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
Heard & Decision announced: 21.7.2010
Facts:
By an application of 20.11.08 received in the UPSC on 25.11.08 Shri Nilesh Yadav of FRI Campus, Dehradun (Uttarakhand) applied to the CPIO, UPSC seeking the following information:
"1. How many physically handicapped candidates appeared in the above said Civil Services Exam 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and how many of them were finally selected? Their names, roll nos. and subjects etc. be provided.
2. Please provide the name, roll no. and marks obtained by each successful physically handicapped applicant in each subject (excluding Indian languages & English) in the main Civil Services Exam. Year 2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007.
3. What was the cut off marks point for physically handicapped candidates in the main Exam. 2007?
4. Kindly also provide marks obtained by physically handicapped persons in interview for Civil Services Exam. 2007."
Upon this, Shri Nilesh Yadav received a response pointwise dated 23.11.08 from CPIO Shri Prachish Khanna informing him as follows:
"Point (1) Lists indicating names, roll numbers and optional subjects of PH candidates recommended on the basis of Civil Services Examinations, 2004 to 2007 are enclosed. A copy of optional subject codes is also enclosed.
Points (2) & (4) The requisite information on subject wise marks and marks in Personality Test etc. is not compiled category wise.
Point (3) The information relating to cut off marks cannot be shared as disclosure of the same would affect the confidentiality and integrity of the examination process and is 1 exempted from disclosure under Sec. 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Aggrieved with answers 2-4, Shri Yadav moved an appeal before JS Shri K. S. Bariar on 3.1.09 pleading as follows:
1. " Please provide examination results and marks obtained of finally selected PH category candidates (Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2003 to 2007 including optional subjects, general studies, essay, interview etc.
2. If for any reason, it is not possible to provide details as asked at (1) above, kindly provide complete results of the Exam. (as detailed in (1) above), so that information relating to physically handicapped persons could be gathered.
3. I am now not interested in cut off marks as requested vide point (2) in my previous application.
One more request - that whatever information is provided by UPSC, it should be legible/readable. Photo copies should be clear so that these can be read with normal eyesight. Previously supplied copies were so light that it could not be read."
In his order of 2.2.09 Shri Bariar, who had received the appeal on 12.1.09, decided as follows1:
"3. With regard to appellant's request at S. No. 1 of his appeal seeking detailed result of physically challenged candidates of the C.S.(Main) Examination 2003-07 (in his original RTI application, the appellant has sought information for the period 2004-07 only). I note that the reply given by the CPIO, UPSC is appropriate and based on facts in view of the above, I do not see any point to intercede to in the matter.
4. I also note that the appellant has not pressed for and dropped his request for information on cut off marks asked in para 3 of his RTI application. With regard to appellant's requests at S. No. 2 & 4 of his RTI appeal the CPIO, UPSC has replied that the requisite information on subject wise marks and marks in Personality Test etc. not compiled category wise. The appellant in his instant appeal has stated that in the event this is not possible, entire result be given to him. 5 I note that the CPIO has expressed his inability to provide information on marks obtained subject wise / interview marks 1 A copy of the order of 2.2.09 received from appellant together with his appeal being illegible, a fresh copy was obtained from respondents in the hearing 2 by PH candidates as same is not compiled. The alternate information asked by the appellant is a new request not figuring in the original RTI application. The CPIO has not considered this request and hence no appeal can lie against it. As such, the appellant may first approach the CPIO with request for information now required and raised by him in the present appeal."
This has brought Shri Yadav to his second appeal before us with the following prayer :
"I had requested UPSC for providing details of marks obtained in Main Exam by PH category candidates only, which has not been provided by UPSC.
It is requested that Central Information Commission may kindly arrange to provide me the above information in the public interest."
The appeal was heard by videoconference on 21.7.2010. The following are present :
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Shri Rameshwar Dayal, DS & CPIO Shri Naresh Kaushik, Advocate Shri D. B. Das, U.S. Shri Rajender Singh, S.O. Shri D. R. Madan, Asstt.
Appellant Shri Nilesh Yadav was heard through audio conference, he being unable to reach the NIC Centre, Dehradun in time.
Ld. Counsel for respondents Shri Naresh Kaushik submitted written arguments on behalf of respondents UPSC in which he has concluded, as follows:
"The appellant, instead of acting in accordance with the advice of the Appellate Authority and approaching the CPIO with the request made in the alternative viz. to give the result of all qualified candidates of the Civil Services (Main) Examination 2003 to 2007, has chosen to approach this Hon'ble Commission by way of a second appeal, which in the circumstances is not maintainable and an abuse to the process of law. It is also pertinent to point out that the Appellant in his original application under RTI has sought 3 information only with respect to the years 2004-2007, which he subsequently modified to years 2003-2007.
However, it is pointed out that the marks of candidates are exempt from disclosure under Sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being third party information, personal information to these candidate. It is humbly submitted that the very purpose of competitive examination is to select the best from among the competing candidates and sharing of details with respect to the marks etc. would in the long run render the examination process to misuse / manipulation by the interested individuals / groups and effect the core functioning. Therefore, non disclosure of such information justifies the larger public interest than the disclosure of it."
Appellant Shri Nilesh Yadav conceded that he had indeed received answer to question 1, but he challenged the grounds for refusal of information being third party, regarding questions 2-4. He, however, conceded that in case such information was not held separately for the physically challenged, he was willing to move a fresh application in this regard, provided the public authority did not then take the plea of refusal u/s 8(1)(j). Respondents Shri Rameshwar Dayal submitted that it is a fact that marks of individual candidates are made available to them but thus far marks of other candidates even in the publication of results of examinations are not made public considering these to be private information and, therefore, exempt u/s 8(1)(j). Similarly, cut off marks of the last successful candidates are also provided. Such marks are at any rate accessible on the website of the UPSC.
DECISION NOTICE In this case the information now sought by appellant is, as held by Appellate Authority Shri Bariar fresh information and not asked for in the application. Applicant has himself agreed to apply afresh to the CPIO to obtain this information. Information for which he had applied having been supplied to appellant Shri Nilesh Yadav, the present appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
4However, since the issue of disclosure of marks being exempt u/s 8(1)(j) has been raised and to ensure that any further application of appellant to the UPSC will not prove infructuous on this ground, we have examined the issue of whether marks obtained in a public examination of successful candidates can be deemed to be private information held in confidence for a third party and refused, therefore, under sec. 11(1) read with Sec. 8(1)(j). In F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00308 Pramod Kumar Gupta vs. Canara Bank, P&D Wing decided on 28.8.'06, 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 disclosed 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:
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 party, since these are not expected to be held in confidence, nor is this personal 5 information by any definition of the term, which would render it exempt under sub sec. (j) of Sec. 8(1)2. 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."
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 21.7.2010 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 21.7.2010 2 Underlined by us for emphasis 6