Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

R Sivakumar vs Ut Of Puducherry on 23 February, 2026

                                                         CIC/UTPON/A/2024/631395


                                 के ीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                               बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं       ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTPON/A/2024/631395

R Sivakumar                                                ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                    VERSUS
                                    बनाम
CPIO: Department of
Personnel & Administrative                               ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Reforms (Govt. of
Puducherry), Puducherry

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 21.03.2024             FA     : 24.05.2024           SA     : Nil.

CPIO : 25.04.2024            FAO : 20.06.2024              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 21.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) Copy of all pages of My Answer Sheet/booklet (evaluated) pertaining to Paper

- I held in morning session on 06.08.2023

2) Copy of all pages of My Answer Sheet/booklet (evaluated) pertaining to Paper

- II held in afternoon session on 06.08.2023.

3) Marks Secured by each of the Selected Candidates in Paper - I and Paper - 2.

CIC/UTPON/A/2024/631395

4) Statement of Marks / Merit List.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.04.2024. and the same is reproduced as under:-

Reply :- In respect of information sought for at sl. no. 1 & 2, 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 Honorable 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 evaluated conventional answer scripts 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/DepartmentalExam/ViewMark 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 at sl.no. 3 & 4, 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. Hence, the same could not be provided.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 20.06.2024 observed as under :-

Reply:- In the case of Thiru Salinkumar.B Vs the PIO, Exam Cell decided on 22.02.2024, the FAA, the undersigned decided a similar case, in which also the Page 2 of 6 CIC/UTPON/A/2024/631395 applicant therein sought the copy of his answer sheet of the same LDCE for Assistant held on 06.08.2023. The undersigned, relying upon the decision of the CIC in Muslim TR VS CPIO, UPSC dated 04.07.2023, concluded that in view of the decision of the CIC in the said case adjourning the matter sine die, it would not be appropriate to issue any positive direction to CPIO to supply the required evaluated papers.

7. The FAA does not see any new ground to decide this case otherwise as it is a similar case quoted above. In both the cases the applicant want to have the copy of their answer sheets of the LDCE for Assistant held on 06.08.2023 and hence the earlier decision of the FAA dated 22.02.2024 is squarely applicable to this case also.

8. Accordingly, it is ordered that the reply of the PIO dated 25.04.2024 in respect of Query (i) & (ii) 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.

9. As regards, Q (iii) & (iv), it is noted that the overall mark-list of all the candidates was published in the Exam Cell recruitment portal and hence it is now in public domain. Hence, the appeal on these points becomes infructuous and no further direction is required. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed.

4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present through videoconference.

Respondent: Shri M.S. Sudhakar, Superintendent - participated in the hearing through videoconference.

CIC/UTPON/A/2024/631395

5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that he has sought copy of his own answer script which has been wrongly denied on frivolous grounds. He averred that the denial of own answer script is against the principle of transparency which is basis of enactment of RTI Act. He averred that even the school students can get copy of their evaluated answer scripts from the school education boards then on what basis the evaluated answer script with respect to recruitment process is denied. He averred that the denial of evaluated answer script raises doubt on the fairness of selection made in the examination held for promotion.

6. The Respondent submitted 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 stated that category wise merit list has been placed in public domain, furthermore, marks of all the candidates appeared for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination has been placed on their official website. A written submission dated 12.02.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:

6. 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."

7. No It is humbly submitted that category wise select list has been published vide Notification A.3401 2/1/2023/DP&AR(Exam) dated 28.11.2023 available in the website link Page 4 of 6 CIC/UTPON/A/2024/631395 https://dpar.py.gov.in/exam/result/competitive/Notification 28.11.23 pdf and the statement of marks of all candidates appeared for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination has been published vide Notification No.A.34012/1/2023/DP&AR(Exam) dated 18.06.2024 and it is available in the website link https://recruitment.py.gov.in/files/24/ldce-for- promotion-to-the-post-of-assistant-result

6. 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 Appeal and render justice.

Decision:

7. 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 for information related to Notification No. A. 34012/1/2023/DP&AR(Exam) dated 16.02.2023 regarding Limited Departmental Competitive Examination conducted by conducted by Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Puducherry for Promotion to the post of Assistant held on 06.08.2023. The Appellant was one of the candidates in the aforementioned Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held on 06.08.2023.

8. Commission observes that in the instant RTI Application the Appellant had sought information on 4 points. 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 disclosure of marks of other candidates, it is noted that the PIO during hearing as well as in their latest written submission has clearly mentioned that category wise merit list and marks of all the candidates appeared for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination has been placed in public domain on the official website of Respondent Public Authority.

CIC/UTPON/A/2024/631395

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. रमे श) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO Superintendent-(Examination Cell), Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Govt. of Puducherry), (Personnel Wing), Goubert Avenue, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry-605001.

2 R Sivakumar Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)