Central Information Commission
Kunal Kashyap vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection ... on 18 May, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2024/649628
Kunal Kashyap ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Delhi Subordinate Services ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Selection Board (DSSSB)
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 23.08.2024 FA : 21.09.2024 SA : 11.11.2024
CPIO : 19.09.2024 FAO : 22.10.2024 Hearing : 28.04.2026
Date of Interim Decision: 18.05.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.08.2024, before the CPIO, Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), seeking information as under:
"Enclosed please find the copy of my Admit card issued by the Honourable controller of the Exam, DSSSB. I appeared for the Descriptive Exam (Tier-2) for the post of Junior Judicial Assistant (JJA), Post Code-802/24 My details are as follows:
Name: Kunal Kashyap Father's Name: Sushil Kashyap Page 1 of 7 Second Appeal No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2024/649628 Roll Number: 248022201001806 Registration Number: 2501199561948062010 Date of Birth: 25-01-1995 Date of Exam and Shift: 02-06-2024, 08:30 AM-10:30 AM Please provide me a certified copy of my answer sheet for the above-mentioned examination under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005."
2. The CPIO replied to the RTI Application on 19.09.2024, as under:
"As per policy of the Board, the descriptive sheet of the candidate cannot be disclosed."
3. Aggrieved with the CPIO's reply, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.09.2024, stating as under:
"(1) With reference to the reply dt. 19-09-2024 to this RTI Application. The reply received is as below:
"As per the policy of the Board, the descriptive answer sheet of the candidate cannot be disclosed".
No document was attached with the above reply. Please provide me certified copies of all related documents of the policy of the Board in respect of furnishing an assessed copy of the descriptive answer sheet requested by its respective candidate during the ongoing recruitment process.
(2) Maintaining and giving answer copies may be an extra workload, but it is not a reasonable excuse to deny this information under RTI Act, 2005. If no related documents exist as requested in Point no. (1), please provide me a certified copy of my answer sheet duly assessed by the checkers bearing roll no. 248022201001806 and application no 80049089 of Tier-2 Descriptive Examination for the post of JJA (Post code 802/24). My admit card for the respective examination is also attached for your kind reference.
Page 2 of 7 Second Appeal No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2024/649628Please provide me a copy of all relevant documents in respect of information sought under point 1 & 2 above. If the information sought by me doesn't pertain to your office, my application may be transferred to appropriate Public Authority/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (PIO) under SECTION 6(3) of RTI ACT 2005 immediately."
4. The FAA vide order dated 22.10.2024, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
5. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 11.11.2024.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
6. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. On behalf of the Respondent, Radhey Shyam Meena, DS & CPIO along with Raju Chaudhary, SA attended the hearing in person.
7. The Commission took on record the written submissions dated 24.04.2026 of the Appellant, reiterating the material facts available on record. Further, the following contentions were made:
"(i) The Board Resolution & Supremacy of the RTI Act (Section 22): The Respondent has denied information citing a Board Resolution issued vide F. No. 5(01)/2019/DSSSB/Admn/625-31 dated 14.03.2019. The same was provided by RTI Reply dt. 28.07.2025 by the CPIO, DSSSB to the applicant. The reply to the RTI has been annexed as Annexure A-1 for kind reference.
It is further submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides an "overriding effect" over any law or "instrument having effect by virtue of any law." An internal administrative resolution cannot legally supersede the statutory right to information granted by Parliament under Section 3 of the RTI Act.
(ii) UPSC v Angesh Kumar Reliance is misplaced in the Board's Resolution: The Board's reliance on Order dated 20.02.2018 in the matters of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar (Civil Appeal Nos. 6159-6162 of 2013) (Annexed as Annexure A-5) is misplaced in the Board Resolution dt. 14.03.2019 (Annexed as Annexure A-1).
Page 3 of 7 Second Appeal No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2024/649628It is submitted that the case primarily dealt with the disclosure of data related to all candidates which includes raw marks, scaling methods etc in the specific context of the Civil Services Exam. It did not create a blanket ban on an individual candidate seeking their own descriptive sheet for self-evaluation in a direct recruitment exam for the post of JJA in District & Session Courts and any similar post exams conducted by DSSSB.
It is further submitted that the case primarily pertained to raw marks, scaled marks, cut-offs, and third-party data; it contains no mention whatsoever of a candidate's own descriptive answer sheet. In that same judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed and cited the fundamental principles established in the case of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011). (Annexed as Annexure A-4) The imposition of a blanket ban by the DSSSB coupled with its selective reading of the judgment - constitutes a grave legal error.
It is clearly stated in the judgement that "Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing." The Page No. 9, Para 10 of the judgement (in UPSC v Angesh Kumar) is reproduced as below:
"Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters."
In view of (ii) above, it is submitted that the applicant has drafted a comparison sheet regarding disclosure of Examination Records under RTI Act, 2005 for kind reference. (Annexed as Annexure A-3) Page 4 of 7 Second Appeal No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2024/649628
(iii) Binding Precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: In CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 (Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011) (Annexed as Annexure A-
4), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that:
(a) An evaluated answer-book is "information" under Section 2(f).
(b) The examining body does NOT hold the answer book in a fiduciary relationship.
(c) The examinee has a right to inspect and obtain a certified copy of their own evaluated script.
In view of (iii) above, It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that an examinee has the right to inspect their evaluated answer sheet or to obtain a certified copy thereof. This judgment is binding under Article 141.
(iv) Precedent of the Supreme Court of India (Registry): The Appellant has already been provided with his own descriptive answer sheet by the Registry of the Supreme Court of India for the post of Junior Court Assistant (Reference: Dy. No. 4137/RTI/24-25/SCI). The reply dt. 24.03.2025 by Additional Registrar & CPIO of Supreme Court of India is attached herewith as Annexure A-2 for kind reference.
In view of (iv) above, It is submitted that if the apex judicial body of the country provides descriptive sheets under RTI, the DSSSB's refusal is arbitrary and inconsistent with established legal practice.
(v) Application of Section 10 (Severability): If the Respondent harbors concerns regarding the identity or safety of the examiner, the Appellant is willing to accept the copy after the masking/redaction of the examiner's name, initials, or code, as permitted under Section 10 of the RTI Act.
(vi) Power of the Hon'ble Commission to Direct Systemic Changes: Under Section 19(8)(a)(iv) of the RTI Act, the Hon'ble Commission has the power to require a public authority to make necessary changes to its practices. The DSSSB Resolution dated 14.03.2019 is inherently inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act and the ratio of Aditya Bandopadhyay. It is humbly requested that the Commission exercise its powers Page 5 of 7 Second Appeal No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2024/649628 under Section 19(8) and Section 25(5) to recommend/direct the Respondent to bring its disclosure policy in line with the RTI Act."
8. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and submitted that-
"....the policy of the DSSSB as decided in the meeting of its Board dated 19-02-2019, was to abide by the orders of Hon'ble Supreme court which also held not to disclose the OMR answer sheet, evaluated booklet (descriptive/skill test etc.), raw marks, recruitment related files and the wait list panel by the Public Information Officer." In the backdrop of the Appellant's contention that the Angesh Kumar judgment is specific to the Civil Services Examination, the Rep. of the CPIO vaguely stated that the DSSSB examination under reference is also supposed to be of 'civil' nature.
9. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the Appellant has raised tenable arguments in his written submissions dated 24.04.2026 against the averred reply of the CPIO. Per contra, the CPIO's submissions do not offer any rebuttal to these grounds, rather the CPIO tendered an absurd argument during the hearing, which is viewed adversely by the Commission. It is also pertinent to note that the Respondent has failed to provide a reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The reliance placed on a resolution passed by DSSSB is not in alignment with the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the resolution dated 19.02.2019 reads as- "The Board took a decision to abide by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which also held not to disclose the OMR Answer Sheet, evaluated booklet (descriptive/skill test etc.), raw marks, recruitment related files and the wait list panel by the Public Information Officer,...". However, the Angesh Kumar judgment as reproduced hereunder nowhere issues any directions for the DSSSB to 'abide by':
"(10) Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest.Page 6 of 7 Second Appeal No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2024/649628
However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters."
10. In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the Respondent to file a rebuttal to each of the contentions raised by the Appellant in his written submissions dated 24.04.2026, the contents of which are reproduced above in para 7. In addition to this, the CPIO's rebuttal must also respond to the observations of the Commission in para 9 above. The said rebuttal of the Respondent must reach the Commission within 15 days of the receipt of this order under intimation to the Appellant.
11. In view of the foregoing, the concerned registry is directed to re-schedule the matter for hearing within eight weeks of this order.
12. The Appeal is reserved for final orders.
A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 18.05.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 7 of 7 Second Appeal No. CIC/DSSSB/A/2024/649628 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)