Central Information Commission
Saumya Kaul vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 September, 2021
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/2020/601016
Saumya Kaul ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Union Public Service Commission,
RTI Cell, Dholpur House, Shahjahan
Road, New Delhi - 110069. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/07/2021
Date of Decision : 27/08/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/10/2019
CPIO replied on : 14/11/2019
First appeal filed on : 15/11/2019
First Appellate Authority's order : 06/12/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/01/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 18.10.2019 seeking the following information regarding Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination 2019;
1. The total number of candidates registered for the exam.
2. The total number of candidates actually attempting the exam.
3. Official Answer keys for Paper I and Paper II.
4. Cut off marks of each category (Gen, ST, ST, OBC, EWS, Ph) in the exam required to qualify for the Civil Services (Mains) Examination, 2019.
The CPIO informed the appellant on 14.11.2019 that the information with respect to CSE Exam, 2019 will be available after the entire process of CSE, 2019 is over i.e. after the declaration of the final result of the CS Exam, 2019.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2019. FAA's order dated 06.12.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Advocates Koshy John & Shantanu Mathur present through audio conference.
Respondent: Paramjit Chadha, US & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Advocates of the Appellant stated that their main grievance is with regard to the denial of the official answer keys by the CPIO without ascribing any reasons for it. It was further stated that the CPIO was denying the information which was available in the custody of UPSC and is also eventually released by the UPSC in the public domain, i.e after declaration of the final results of CSE. The advocates highlighted that although the information is eventually released by UPSC but the purpose of the Appellant in seeking this information through the RTI Act immediately upon declaration of the prelims results is to capitalise on the time that is available with an aspiring student who fails in the prelims but wants to prepare for the next years examination. The advocates briefly narrated the timeline of the UPSC Civil Service Examinations to urge that the current policy of 2 UPSC to release the answer keys shortly prior to the onset of the next years Preliminary examination serves no purpose as there is hardly anytime left for the aspiring candidates to reflect on their performance vis-à-vis the answer keys of the preceding attempt. On the other hand, the advocates insisted that disclosure of the answer keys immediately upon declaration of the results of the preliminary examination can cause no prejudice to the successive stages of the examination and the preliminary examination is a standalone examination as the marks obtained in it are not counted in the final results rather is touted to be only of a qualifying nature. In this regard, the advocates relied on an earlier order of the Commission dated 01.03.2013 wherein, it was held that the preliminary examination is a standalone examination and the disclosure of the answer key during the pendency if the examination process was allowed. Lastly, the advocates of the Appellant harped on the fact that none of the exemptions prescribed under the RTI Act was claimed by the CPIO to deny the information, and in this regard, they relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Anjali Bhardwaj vs. Union of India to state that the Court has laid down the ratio that the information sought for under the RTI Act can only be rejected for the reasons specified in Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. They also emphasized on the larger public interest involved in the disclosure of the said information vis-à-vis the scores of candidates who look forward to evaluate their performance in the said examination, which forms the basis of their future attempts at the Civil Services Examination.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant was duly informed that the information will be provided upon completion of the examination process as per the extant UPSC policy and the same is also clearly stipulated in the CSE Examination notification. He further submitted that as on date the averred information is already available on their website.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the issue for determination in the instant case is not per se withholding of information by UPSC but a matter seeking policy change for placing the answer keys of UPSC Preliminary examination immediately upon concluding the evaluation of the Prelims citing the interests of the candidates who are desirous of attempting the future Prelims. From the standpoint of the RTI Act, it cannot be said that UPSC is withholding the information or is not being transparent since it makes the 3 information accessible to the public at a determined point in time. It is also pertinent to note that during the course of the hearing, the advocates of the Appellant did not raise any issue of transparency but primarily argued in the favour of policy changes to be adopted by UPSC to suit the interests of the aspiring candidates in facilitating their preparation for the future attempts.
Nonetheless, concededly, the argument of the advocates of the Appellant weighs in that the CPIO did not invoke any exemption clause of the RTI Act to deny the information, however, by according a liberal interpretation to the CPIO's reply, it may be noted that at no point in time has the CPIO effectively denied to provide the information to the Appellant, rather, he has duly indicated the contingency upon which the information will be made available. The dissemination of information in the public domain is one of the tenets of the RTI Act and in the instant case the said dissemination is complete upon placing the information on the UPSC website after the examination process is over.
Further, it has been gathered from open sources that the decision of the earlier bench of the Commission dated 01.03.2013 relied upon by the advocates of the Appellant during the hearing was challenged by the UPSC before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 3059/2013 and CM APPL. 5793/2013, whereby on 07.05.2014, based on the undertaking of the UPSC the Court ordered as under:
"Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for petitioner states that as civil services examination for the year 2012 has been completed in as much as results have already been announced, petitioner shall provide the answer keys to the respondent, if not earlier provided, within a period of four weeks.
The aforesaid statement is accepted by this Court and petitioner is held bound by the same.
In view of the aforesaid, present writ petition and application are disposed of. However, the issue of law raised in the present petition is left open to be decided in an appropriate case."
By applying the same rationale, in the instant case also now that the UPSC has parted with the information and placed it in the public domain, no further scope of relief is pertinent in the matter.
4Yet, juxtaposing the plea of larger public interest of the aspiring candidates with that of the difficulties that may be faced by the UPSC or the public exchequer at large upon disclosure of the answer key of Preliminary examinations during the pendency of the examination process, the Commission while considering the question of whether or not the reply of the CPIO was appropriate at the relevant time observes that when there are two conflicting interests, the preamble of the RTI Act lends clarity and effectively adds perspective in the following words:
"And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information; And whereas it is necessary to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal;.."
Adding credence to the aforesaid deduction, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgement of the Apex Court underlining the sanctity of the UPSC Civil Services Examinations in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar. In the averred judgment, the Apex Court has relied on another judgment passed by the same Court in the matter of Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar vs. UPSC to emphasize on harmonising the conflicting interests of 'need for transparency with optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information' while holding the view that the 'situation of other academic bodies stands on a different footing' than UPSC.
Having observed as above, the Commission does not find any infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO, however, in the considered opinion of this bench, the issue of policy change advocated by the representatives of the Appellant for the larger good of the aspiring candidates may be taken up before the appropriate Court of Law. A copy of this order is also marked to the Chairman, UPSC to take note of the concerns raised by the Appellant regarding not being able to access the UPSC Civil Services Prelims answer key immediately upon declaration of the Prelims results.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Copy to:
Chairman Union Public Service Commission Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110069
--(For appropriate action) 6