Central Information Commission
Deepak Nama vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 September, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UPSCM/A/2022/602239
Deepak Nama ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Union Public Service Commission,
RTI Cell, Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/09/2022
Date of Decision : 27/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 06/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 13/12/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : 05/01/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/01/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 18.11.2021 seeking the following information:
"I want to get my civil services mains exam copies 2020 Name -deepak nama Father name- Surej mil name Mother name- bhanwari Devi Roll no-1109052 Identity card no-289355963066 Registration no-12010457023 Such details are below which 1 I want to get by rti Essay -sub code 98{ paper 1) General studies l and 2 sub code 99( paper 2 and 3) General studies 3 and 4 sub code 97( paper 4 and 5) Pol science and international relations optional paper 1 and 2 sub code 37 (paper 6 and 7)."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 06.12.2021 stating as follows:-
".............the conventional answer sheet of Civil Services Examination are neither provided to candidate nor to the third party. In this regard, you may kindly refer to the judgement dated 2011' February, 2018 of Hon'ble Supreme Court, on disclosure of raw marks and evaluated conventional answer sheets in the Civil Appeal No. (s) 6159-6162 of 2013 (UPSC etc. Vs Angesh Kumar & Ors.) with C.A. No. 5924/2013 (Joint. Directors and CP10 and others Vs. T.R.Rajesh) where Hon'ble Court has upheld Commission's stand with regard to non disclosure of raw marks and evaluated conventional answer sheets."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2021. FAA's order dated 05.01.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Arun Kumar, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the complete denial of the information as insisted that he may at the least be provided with the last page of his answer script where his marks have been recorded.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Application and emphasised on the square applicability of the Angesh Kumar judgment in the matter.
Decision:2
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO. The Appellant's attention is drawn towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar in Civil Appeal No(s). 6159-6162 of 2013 with C.A No. 5924/2013 wherein para 8 records the extract of the counter affidavit filed in the matter of Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar vs. UPSC suggesting the problems in showing evaluated answer books to candidates as under:
"(B) Problems in showing evaluated answer books to candidates.--(i) Final awards subsume earlier stages of evaluation. Disclosing answer books would reveal intermediate stages too, including the so-called 'raw marks' which would have negative implications for the integrity of the examination system, as detailed in Section (C) below.
(ii) The evaluation process involves several stages.
Awards assigned initially by an examiner can be struck out and revised due to (a) totalling mistakes, portions unevaluated, extra attempts (beyond prescribed number) being later corrected as a result of clerical scrutiny, (b) The examiner changing his own awards during the course of evaluation either because he/she marked it differently initially due to an inadvertent error or because he/she corrected himself/herself to be more in conformity with the accepted standards, after discussion with Head Examiner/colleague examiners, (c) Initial awards of the Additional Examiner being revised by the Head Examiner during the latter's check of the former's work, (d) the Additional Examiner's work having been found erratic by the Head Examiner, been rechecked entirely by another examiner, with or without the Head 1 (2013) 12 SCC 489 Examiner again rechecking this work.
(iii) The corrections made in the answer book would likely arouse doubt and perhaps even suspicion in the candidate's mind. Where such corrections lead to a lowering of earlier awards, this would not only breed representations/grievances, but would likely lead to litigation. In the only evaluated answer book that has so far been shown to a candidate (Shri Gaurav Gupta in WP No. 3683 of 2012 in Gaurav Gupta v. UPSC dated 6.7.2012(Del.)) on the orders of the High Court, Delhi and that too, with the marks assigned masked; the candidate has nevertheless filed a fresh WP alleging improper evaluation.
(iv) As relative merit and not absolute merit is the criterion here (unlike academic examinations), a feeling of the initial marks/revision made being considered harsh when looking at the particular answer script in isolation could 3 arise without appreciating that similar standards have been applied to all others in the field. Non-appreciation of this would lead to erosion of faith and credibility in the system and challenges to the integrity of the system, including through litigation.
(v) With the disclosure of evaluated answer books, the danger of coaching institutes collecting copies of these from candidates (after perhaps encouraging/inducing them to apply for copies of their answer books under the RTI Act) is real, with all its attendant implications.
(vi) With disclosure of answer books to candidates, it is likely that at least some of the relevant examiners also get access to these. Their possible resentment at their initial awards (that they would probably recognise from the fictitious code numbers and/or their markings, especially for low-candidature subjects) having been superseded (either due to inter-examiner or inter-subject moderation) would lead to bad blood between Additional Examiners and the Head Examiner on the one hand, and between examiners and the Commission, on the other hand. The free and frank manner in which Head Examiners, for instance, review the work of their colleague Additional Examiners, would likely be impacted. Quality of assessment standards would suffer.
(vii) Some of the optional papers have very low candidature (sometimes only one), especially the literature papers. Even if all examiners' initials are masked (which too is difficult logistically, as each answer book has several pages, and examiners often record their initials and comments on several pages with revisions/corrections, where done, adding to the size of the problem), the way marks are awarded could itself be a give away in revealing the examiner's identity. If the masking falters at any stage, then the examiner's identity is pitilessly exposed. The 'catchment area' of candidates and examiners in some of these low-candidature papers is known to be limited. Any such possibility of the examiner's identity getting revealed in such a high-stakes examination would have serious implications, both for the integrity and fairness of the examination system and for the security and safety of the examiner. The matter is compounded by the fact that we have publicly stated in different contexts earlier that the paper-setter is also generally the Head Examiner.
(viii) UPSC is now able to get some of the best teachers and scholars in the country to be associated in its evaluation work. An important reason for this is no doubt the assurance of their anonymity, for which the Commission goes to great lengths. Once disclosure of answer books starts and the inevitable challenges 4 (including litigation) from disappointed candidates starts, it is only a matter of time before these examiners who would be called upon to explain their assessment/award, decline to accept further assignments from the Commission. A resultant corollary would be that examiners who then accept this assignment would be sorely tempted to play safe in their marking, neither awarding outstanding marks nor very low marks, even where these are deserved. Mediocrity would reign supreme and not only the prestige, but the very integrity of the system would be compromised markedly."
In view of the foregoing, it is essentially clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while arriving at the decision of precluding disclosure of marks obtained by candidates in UPSC Civil Services Exam has also assessed the aspect of disclosure of answer books.
Having observed as above, the Commission cannot order for any relief in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5