Central Information Commission
Mr. S M Arora vs Supreme Court Of India on 24 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000536 dated 30.4.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Kamdev Paswan
Respondent - Staff Selection Commission
Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT)
Appeal Heard: 21.7.2010
Decision announced: 23.7.2010
Facts:
By an application of 29.1.08, Shri Kamdev Paswan of Doranda, Ranchi, applied to the CPIO, SSC seeking the following information:
"(1) Since I had opted for the post Inspector (Income Tax) as Second preference and the Inspector of Posts as fifth preference, as to under what circumstances I have not been appointed as Inspector (Income Tax).
(2) The actual marks obtained by me in the main examination and interview separately. Besides this marks obtained by the candidates appointed for the Post of Inspector (Income Tax) in main examination and interview separately and their preference number for the Post of Inspector (Income Tax)."
To this, Shri Kamdev Paswan received a response dated 12.2.08 from CPIO Shri V. K. Aggarwal, Under Secretary informing him, as follows:
"You (roll number 2073998) category SC, had secured total 336 marks in Assistant Stream, 348 marks in CBI Stream in the written part and 51 marks in Interview in Scheme 'A' and # marks in Scheme 'B' of Combined Graduate Level Exam 2005. # Absent in appear-II of Section 'B'.' Shri Paswan then moved a second application dated 7.3.08 in which he expanded on his request as follows:
"(1) While I had opted the Inspector (Income Tax) as the Second preference and the Inspector of Posts as fifth preference, as to under what circumstances I have not been appointed as Inspector (Income Tax), (As the marks obtained by the last 1 candidate for both Inspector (Income Tax) and Inspector of Posts for the SC category is 399).
(2) Name of the each SC candidate who have obtained 399 marks and have been selected for Inspector (Income Tax) and Inspector of Posts separately, along with their preferences."
He further sought amplification by designing a proforma (i) & (ii), both covering the following:
S. Ro Name of each candidate of SC Marks Preferenc No ll category who have obtained 399 obtained es opted . No marks and have been selected for by them by them . the post of Inspector (Income Tax) To this, Shri Kamdev Paswan received no response prompting him to move an appeal on 15.5.08 before Shri L. Vishwanathan, Director, SSC pleading that "after passing of two months I haven't got the information in this regard as I would like to kindly remind that the information regarding RTI must be submitted within thirty days." He also moved an appeal before Secretary, Central Information Commission on 9.7.08 and an appeal before the Central Information Commission on 25.7.08. That appeal, admitted as CIC/WB/A/2008/001238 was disposed of on 25.9.08 with the directions to the First Appellate Authority to consider the appeal. Appellant Shri Kamdev Paswan was also advised that should he be dissatisfied with the ruling of the first Appellate Authority, he might then move a second appeal before us u/s 19(3).
In the meantime, however, it was seen that by the order of 16.10.08 Appellate Authority, SSC, Ms. Gayatri Sharma has passed the following order:
"2. It is not possible to supply the report in the proforma devised by you as a Public Authority can supply information in the form as held by the Public Authority.
3. Names of candidates scoring 399 marks in mains and Interview are not communicated.
4. As a matter of policy, marks in mains and Interview are not communicated.
5. As regards, why you have not been recommended for Inspector of Income Tax, it is informed that more than one 2 candidate scored 399 marks. This tie was broken on the basis of marks obtained in written part of the Combined Graduate Level Exam 2005. Since, the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in written part were more than the marks obtained by you in written part of the said Exam, you were not recommended for the post of Inspector of Income Tax."
It is against this order that appellant Shri Paswan has moved his second appeal with the following prayer:
"As to point no. 3 in Annexure-7, names of candidates scoring 399 marks was not sought. Neither information regarding marks obtained by the candidates appointed for the post of Inspector (Income Tax) in main Examination and Interview separately nor their preference number for the post of Inspector (Income Tax) in SC category was sought after me. This is not third party information as my selection depends upon their marks and preferences opted by them. As this information is relating to me and knowing their marks and preferences is essential.
As far as third party information is concerned, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be who denied the request, as per section 19(5) of the RTI Act. And, the order must be a reasoned order.
As to point no. 4 in Annexure-7, there is no word in the Right to Information Act, 2005 'as a matter of policy'. If information, life of an information seeker depends, it must be furnished to the applicant under RTI Act, 2005.
As to point no. 5 in Annexure-7, it is informed that more than one candidate scored 399 marks and the tie was broken on the basis of marks obtained in written part of the examination. But there is not any mentioning of preference number. Is there not any importance of preference number/ this information is also vague, as per knowledge the final selection in any department by SSC depends upon the preferences chosen by the candidates."
The appeal was heard by videoconference on 21.7.10. The following are present:
3Appellant at NIC Studio, Ranchi Shri Kamdev Paswan Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Shri P. C. Tandon, US Ms. Usha Malhotra, S.O. The issues before us are two:
1. Disclosure of marks of contesting candidates.
2. Indication of preferences On the points at Sr. No. 3 & 4 of the order of appellate authority, respondent Ms. Usha Malhotra submitted that the Commission is treating the marks of individuals as private information and although results of examinations are published, mark sheets only of the concerned candidates are provided to such candidates. This information is also accessible on the website of the SSC.
There is, however, no publication of general mark sheets.
On point No. 5, however, Ms. Malhotra clarified that the tiebreaker is only resolved among those who have given a first preference for a particular service and have secured identical marks. The marks obtained by appellant Shri Kamdev Paswan have been conveyed to him in the initial response of 12.2.08 to his RTI application. Upon this, appellant Shri Paswan contested the basis of making such decision, upon which he was informed that the quality of decision making was not at issue, but only the disclosure of information sought, which in our view, has been provided in full with regard to this question.
DECISION NOTICE In his application of 7.3.'08, appellant Shri Paswan has specifically asked, "Name of the each SC candidate who have obtained 399 marks and have been selected for Inspector (Income Tax)" Yet in his prayer he has contended "As to point no. 3 in Annexure-7, names of candidates scoring 399 marks was not sought." The question is sought to be answered with points 3 and 4 by appellate 4 authority Ms Gayatri Sharma. We have examined the issue of whether marks obtained in a public examination of successful candidates can be deemed to be private information held in confidence for a third party and refused, therefore, under sec. 11(1) read with Sec. 8(1)(j). In F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00308 Pramod Kumar Gupta vs. Canara Bank, P&D Wing decided on 28.8.'06, we have held as follows:
"CPIO and the appellate authority have erred in interpretation of the provisions of the Act and its effective implementation in true spirit of total transparency in functioning of the public bodies. The outcomes of the examination process should be put in public domain so that the affected persons can have access to it. While the answer sheets are not to be disclosed for reasons already given in several decisions of the Commission, mark sheets and model answers to the set questions, if prepared, should be disclosed after the entire process is complete."
Again, in YB Sharma vs. Staff Selection Commission (CIC/WB/C/2007/00705), we have in a more detailed examination held as follows in our decision of 30.06.'09:
In citing our Decision cited in the orders of appellate authority Shri L. Vishwanathan has stated that "Central Information Commission vide their decision dated 30.4.2007 has stated that no details of conducting of examination could be given" We find that in this Decision in complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/0011 Sujit Pal vs. SSC we have simply reiterated our Full Bench Decision in the clubbed Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2006/00223, Appeal Nos.
CIC/WB/A/2006/00469 & 00394 and Appeal Nos.
CIC/OK/A/2006/00266, 00058,00066 & 00315 dated 25.2.2007, which primarily upholds the right of examination authorities to withhold copies of answer sheets. It is, therefore, incorrect for Shri L. Vishwanathan, Dy. Secretary, SSC to hold that we have in any case held that any details of the examination process notably the identity of an Examination Board and disclosability of mark sheets cannot be disclosed, other than what we have specifically stated. On the other hand, we have in our decisions repeatedly held that the law demands disclosure of mark sheets, which in this case have not been provided. Mark sheets are a matter of public information and cannot be construed as third party, since these are not expected to be held in confidence, nor is this personal information by any definition of the term, which would render it exempt under sub sec. (j) of Sec. 8(1)1. In the same manner, the 1 Underlined by us for emphasis 5 number and names of candidates who appeared for interview in a public examination cannot be treated as confidential information since this is a consequence of the results of the written examination."
Since appellant has now clarified that it is not the names of the candidates that he seeks, however, CPIO SSC will provide to him the marks obtained by the successful candidates in the examination, within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. This disposes of Issue No 1.
On issue No 2. respondents have clarified in the hearing that that the tiebreaker is only resolved among those who have given a first preference for a particular service and have secured identical marks. Therefore the post of Inspector of Income Tax was first preference of all contenders, thus answering the second part of the second question of Shri Kamdev Paswan. This disposes of Issue No. 2 Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced in open chamber on 23.7.'10. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 23.7.2010 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.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 23.7.2010 6