Central Information Commission
Arti vs Union Public Service Commission on 21 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2024/637693
Arti ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Union Public Service Commission,
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 15.07.2024 FA : 07.08.2024 SA : Nil
CPIO : 07.08.2024 FAO : 23.08.2024 Hearing : 08.08.2025
Date of Decision: 20.08.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.07.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"With regards, it is kindly informed that I was a candidate for Advertisement Number:
10/2022, Vacancy Number: 22051009328, Name of Post: Vice Principal in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and applied vide Online Recruitment Application (ORA) no. 19913759871 and appeared examination with Roll No. 1104576. In reference of UPSC Advertisement Number: 10/2022, Vacancy Number: 22051009328, Name of Post: Vice-Principal in Govt. of NCT of Delhi, please provide following information under RTI ACT-2005:
1) Total Marks obtained in written examination by me.
Page 1 of 5
2) Total Marks obtained in Interview by me.
3) Total Marks obtained in written examination by last selected Candidate in
General Category.
4) Total Marks obtained in Interview by last selected Candidate in General
Category.
5) Total Marks obtained in written examination by last selected Candidate in
Schedule Category (SC) Category...."etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Point No. 1: The information sought by the candidate Ms. Arti, Bearing roll no.1104576 cannot be shared as recruitment process is not complete yet."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 23.08.2024 observed as under:
"After having gone through the contents of the original RTI Application, CPIO's reply and the instant Appeal of the Appellant, I am convinced that the reply furnished by the CPIO is in order and needs no intervention at the appeal stage. It is informed that in view of the pending litigations in the matter, the marks of the candidates cannot be disclosed at this stage for the posts in question."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil stating inter alia as under:
"The Union Public Service Commission has declared final Result for selection of candidate w.r.t. abovesaid examination on 12/01/2024 and also has sent dossiers of such selected candidates to the user department i.e. Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi with the recommendations to appoint them for the post of Vice-Principal. Copy of result is enclosed. Accordingly, on the recommendations of UPSC, the user department i.e. Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi has also appointed & posted such selected candidates for the post of Vice-Principal in their Department. Copy of order is enclosed. As, I am a candidate of said UPSC examination but unfortunately I could not got merit in Page 2 of 5 finally recommended candidates for the post. So, to ascertain my position in merit for the preparedness of future examination/s; I submitted a RTI application in UPSC on 15/07/24....
xxx Sir/Madam, Firstly, The Union Public Service Commission has already declared final Result for selection of candidate w.r.t. abovesaid examination on 12/01/2024 and also has sent dossiers of such selected candidates to the user department i.e. Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi with the recommendations to appoint them for the post of Vice-Principal. Also, on the recommendations of UPSC, the user department i.e. Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi has also been appointed & posted such selected candidates for the post of Vice-Principal in their Department. Then how the PIO say recruitment process is not complete yet. The PIO, UPSC falsely stated that recruitment process is not complete yet and deliberately & malafidely denying sought information to me without any reasonable cause. Secondly, to inform the marks secured by me and last selected candidates that have been recommended by UPSC for appointment to user department; what is the role of completion of recruitment process. Thirdly, as ordered by the FAA, UPSC for pending litigation matters; there is no role between pending litigation matters and my scored marks & marks of recommended candidates. And in India only GOD knows when pending litigation matters will end.
xxx Now a days, to show a fair & transparent process of selection in recruitment, while all Govt. recruitment agencies of Central Govt. as well as State/UT Govts. like SSC, DSSSB, UPSSSC, etc. are declaring/publishing result with showing merit & marks of all selected candidates; but the UPSC is not showing the merit/marks of selected candidates. The reason behind this only God knows. As, final result of said examination has been declared by UPSC on 12/01/24; but after elapsing of more than 07 months, I am still unaware about the marks scored by me and merit of selected candidates of exam which is my legitimate right being an auspicious candidate of same examination and my future Page 3 of 5 aspects of examination. Not only this, when any candidate like me, wants to know the merit/marks which is his/her right; the UPSC deliberately & malafidely denying sought information regarding merit/marks to him without any reasonable cause, as stated above. As the UPSC is the top most recruitment institute/agency in India who is also selecting All India Service Officers each & every year. But not showing merit of marks while declaring it's result and also not giving sought information by the PIO & the FAA, UPSC regarding merit of marks of selected candidate & scored marks by me even after elapsing of more than 07 months raised a doubt regarding selection process of the UPSC for the above examination."
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent Khaling Thomas, CPIO along with Shivam, ASO attended the hearing in person.
6. The Respondent submitted that the information cannot be provided as the matter is sub judice. Upon being asked if there is any express embargo on disclosure or publication of the information related to the Appellant as espoused in Section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act, the CPIO simply harped on the fact that it is the practice of UPSC to not disclose such information when the recruitment process has not been completed. Despite being afforded the opportunity to invoke the appropriate exemption clause of Section 8(1) under which the CPIO intends to withhold the information, the CPIO was unable to cite any exemption.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the denial of the information in the instant case appears to be arbitrary and without any backing of the exemptions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the consistent harping on UPSC policy or process to withhold the information sought for under the RTI Act lacks tenacity and is an unwarranted plea in view of the non- obstante clause of the RTI Act prescribed under Section 22 stipulating that- "The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."
Page 4 of 5Having observed as above, the Commission rejects the denial of the information as being erroneous and not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The CPIO is now directed to provide the available information restricted to points 1 & 2 of the RTI Application i.e. the marks obtained by the Appellant. The said information shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
In respect of other points, since the recruitment process is said to be not complete, the result of the exam is understood to be not in the public domain as on date, therefore at this stage, the disclosure of the same stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
8. With the above observations & direction, the Appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 20.08.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Union Public Service Commission, US & CPIO, (RTI Cell) Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069
2. Arti Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)