Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Mr. Swapan Bandyopadhyay vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 January, 2013

                       Central Information Commission, New Delhi
                             File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/001070
                  Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)




Date of hearing                        :                                  15 January 2013


Date of decision                       :                                  15 January 2013



Name of the Appellant                  :    Shri Swapan Bandyopadhyay,
                                            C­122/A­I, Shalimar Garden,
                                            Ex­II, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad,
                                            UP - 201 005.


Name of the Public Authority           :    CPIO, Union Public Service Commission,
                                            (Sangh Lok Seva Ayog), Dholpur House,
                                            Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110 069.



        The Appellant was present in person.

        On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Shakti Shamsher, Under Secretary 

was present.

Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra

2. Both   the   parties   were   present   during   the   hearing.   We   heard   their  submissions.

3. In respect of the combined Steno/SO limited departmental examination  conducted   in   the   years   2006,   2007   and   2008,   the   Appellant  had   sought   a  number of information, such as, the prescribed eligibility conditions for general  candidates for qualifying in the written part of the examination, if the result in  respect of the Appellant himself had been kept on hold, his total score and the  CIC/SM/A/2012/001070 marks awarded to him in each paper as well as those of all other candidates.  The CPIO had replied to him with the observation that the eligibility conditions  had   already   been   advertised   in   the   notice   inviting   applications   for   this  examination and the information in respect of the marks secured by various  candidates   would   be   available   only   after   the   examination   process   was  complete. He had also informed him that he had not cleared the written part of  the examination. The Appellate Authority had endorsed the response of the  CPIO.

4. During   the   hearing,   the   Respondent   admitted   that   the   examination  process was now over. Now that the exemption process is complete, the marks  secured  by   the   recommended  candidates  as   well   as   the   evaluated   answer  sheets of the Appellant himself could be disclosed. However, the Respondent  informed us that the UPSC had got a stay from the Supreme Court against an  order passed by the Kerala High Court on 23 November 2012 in the SLA (C)  No. 33761/2012 directing disclosure of evaluated answer sheets and, therefore,  submitted that they should not be directed to provide these to the Appellant until  the matter was finally decided by the Supreme Court. Although the stay granted  in one case does not necessarily extend to other cases, we would rather go  with the submissions of the Respondent and advise the Appellant to wait for the  Supreme   Court   to   decide   this   matter.   However,   there   is   no   stay   on   the  disclosure of the marks awarded to the selected candidates and, therefore, the  CPIO can easily disclose that information. We direct the CPIO to provide to the  Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order the marks awarded to  all the successful candidates based on the above examination.

5. In the meanwhile, we would like to direct the CPIO to ensure that the  CIC/SM/A/2012/001070 UPSC preserves the evaluated answer sheets of the Appellant until the matter  is finally decided by the Supreme Court.

6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. 

7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner 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.

(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/001070