Central Information Commission
M Geetha vs Ut Of Puducherry on 23 February, 2026
CIC/UTPON/A/2024/630266
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTPON/A/2024/630266
M Geetha ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Department of
Personnel & Administrative ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Reforms (Govt. of
Puducherry), Puducherry
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 12.01.2024 FA : 18.03.2024 SA : 14.07.2024
CPIO : 19.02.2024 FAO : 15.04.2024 Hearing : 13.02.2026
Date of Decision: 13.02.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1) Please provide a copy of my answer sheets (both Paper-1 & Paper-II) bearing Hall Ticket No-113-P and also to inspect the same.
2) Please provide the answer evaluation key for both Paper-1 and Paper-II prepared for evaluating the answer scripts
3) Please provide the authenticated copy of the Mark list (Year wise) who appeared for LDCE along with their date of Birth, date of joining, marks Page 1 of 6 CIC/UTPON/A/2024/630266 obtained in Paper-1 and Paper-Il which is used for drawing Provisional select list notified on 28.11.2023 (Notification No.A.34012/1/2023/DP&AR(Exam).
2. The PIO replied vide letter dated 19.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Reply:- In respect of information sought for at sl. no. 1, it is stated that the Honorable Supreme Court in its judgment dated 20th February 2018 in CA Nos. 6159-6162 of 2013 and 5924/2013 (Union Public Service Commission versus Angesh Kumar & Ors with Joint Director and CPIO and Anr. versus T.R.Rajesh) held that the evaluated Conventional answer sheets are exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the CIC in its decision No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2022/658967 dated 04.07.2023, has also adjourned sine die the matter regarding decision of sharing answer scripts (descriptive) citing the stay order of Delhi High Court in W.P(C) 17101/2022 & CM APPL.54278/2022 dated 04.08.2023 in the matter of UPSC Vs. Ms. Kavitha Panicker & Anr. Hence, the information sought for could not be furnished. However, the applicant can view his marks in the recruitment website link https://recruitment.py.gov.in/Departmental Exam/View Mark by following the steps mentioned in the notice available in the website link https://recruitment.py.gov.in/Administration/Files/RenderFile/19. In respect of information sought for sl. no. 2, it is stated that answer sheet evaluation key for evaluation of answer script is not available with this public authority. Hence, information sought for could not be furnished. In respect of information sought for at sl.no. 3, it is stated that as per the CIC decision CIC/UPSCM/A/2017/122611 dated 19.07.2018 in Shri Vinay Arora Vs UPSC, information sought for regarding marks of other candidates appeared in the exam are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI, Act, 2005. Further, the information sought for will amount of creation of information. Hence, the same could not be provided."Page 2 of 6
CIC/UTPON/A/2024/630266
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 15.04.2024 observed as under.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered that the reply of the PIO dated 16.02.2024 in respect of Query (1) is upheld and a positive direction cannot be issued to the PIO to supply the evaluated papers in view of the decision of the CIC in Muslim T.R Vs CPIO, UPSC dated 04.07.2023. When the answer key is not available with the PIO, he cannot be directed to supply the same. Similarly, the decision of the PIO on Query (3) is also upheld. With this the First Appeal stands disposed.
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 14.07.2024.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri M.S. Sudhakar, Superintendent - participated in the hearing through videoconference.
5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information as available in their records has been provided to the Appellant. As regards point No. 1 the PIO stated that the issue of disclosure of answer sheet was dealt with by the Commission in File No. CIC/UTPON/A/2024/630950 wherein the Commission had concluded that no positive decision for disclosure of answer script can be given as the issue involved is sub-judice before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of UPSC v Kavita Panicker & Anr, W.P.(C) 17101/2022. He further apprised the Bench that the merit list of candidates has been placed in public domain on their official website. A written submission dated 12.02.2026 has been received from the PIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
Page 3 of 6CIC/UTPON/A/2024/630266 "..6. It is humbly submitted that with respect to information sought for at sl.no.1 regarding providing copy and inspection of her own answer sheet, it is submitted that the Honorable Supreme Court in its judgment dated 20th February 2018 in CA Nos. 6159-6162 of 2013 and 5924/2013 (Union Public Service Commission versus Angesh Kumar & Ors with Joint Director and CPIO and Anr. versus T.R.Rajesh) held that the evaluated Conventional answer sheets are exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the Hon'ble CIC in its decision No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2022/658967 dated 04.07.2023, has also adjourned sine die the order of Delhi High Court in W.P(C) 17101/2022 & CM APPL.54278/2022 dated 04.08.2023 in the matter of UPSC Vs. Ms. Kavitha Panicker & Anr.
7. It is humbly submitted that with respect to the information sought for at sl. no.
2, it is stated that the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for Promotion to the post of Assistant is of Descriptive type and there is no evaluation key for evaluation of answer script. Hence, information sought for could not be furnished and it was informed to the Appellant that information was not available.
8. It is humbly submitted that with respect to the information sought for at sl. no. 3, it is stated that the overall mark-list of all the candidates was published in the Exam Cell recruitment portal in the link "https://recruitment.py.gov.in/files/24/ldce-for-promotion-to-the-post-of- assistant-result"and it is now in public domain. Further, it is submitted that the applications for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination were received and processed manually. Hence, information sought for regarding date of birth and date of joining requires compilation of data. However, if the Appellant requires any information of any particular candidate she may inspect the applications and get the required data.
Page 4 of 6CIC/UTPON/A/2024/630266
9. Further, it is humbly submitted that in a similar case of Thiru. K. Praveen Kumar vs PIO, Exam Cell, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Puducherry, wherein, the Appellant has sought for copy of his evaluated answer scripts. The Hon'ble Commission vide decision dated 29.09.2025 (File No. CIC/UTPON/A/2024/630950) has ordered as follows:-
As regards copies of evaluated answer scripts, the issue remains sub judice before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (UPSC v. Kavitha Panicker & Anr., W.P.(C) 17101/2022) and is presently stayed. Hence, no positive direction can be issued at this stage for supply of evaluated answer scripts.
10. In view of the above facts, the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the Second Appeals and render justice..."
Decision:
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that the Appellant has sought information related to Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for Promotion to the Post of "Assistant" (LDCE Assistant -2023) in the year 2023 conducted by Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing), Government of Puducherry.
7. Commission observes that in the instant RTI Application the Appellant had sought information on 3 points. With respect to point No. 1 of the RTI Application, it is pertinent to mention that the issue regarding disclosure of copies of evaluated answer scripts, is sub judice before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (UPSC v. Kavitha Panicker & Anr., W.P.(C) 17101/2022) and order of CIC for disclosure of evaluated answer scripts is presently stayed. Hence, no positive direction for disclosure of evaluated answer scripts can be issued at this stage.
8. As regards point No. 2, the PIO clearly mentioned that there is no evaluation key for evaluation of answer script. It is worthwhile to mention that 'information' as defined Page 5 of 6 CIC/UTPON/A/2024/630266 under Section 2(f) only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the Public Authority. Furthermore, the RTI Act, 2005 does not cast an obligation upon the Public Authority, to create such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. As regards point No. 3, it is noted that as mentioned by the PIO during hearing as well as in their latest written submission that the merit list of candidates along with their marks has been placed in public domain on the official website of Public Authority.
8. In view of foregoing, the Commission upholds the submission of the PIO and is not inclined to intervene in the instant matter at this stage. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Superintendent-(Examination Cell), Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Govt. of Puducherry), Examination Wing, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry-605001.
2 M Geetha Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)