Central Information Commission
Megha Joshi vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 November, 2023
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/2023/138080
Megha Joshi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House, Shahajahan Road,
New Delhi - 110069 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30/10/2023
Date of Decision : 30/10/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26/05/2023
CPIO replied on : 22/06/2023
First appeal filed on : 27/06/2023
First Appellate Authority order : 07/07/2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13/09/2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.05.2023 seeking the following information:
"I was a candidate for Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2022 conducted by UPSC. My details for this examination were as follows:
Name: MEGHA JOSHI Date of Birth: 23 August 1990 Roll Number: 0106438 1 After the result of CSE 2022 was declared I found that my marks in ESSAY Paper - 1 are very low. I strongly feel that there has occurred some kind of mistake either in the evaluation of my answer booklet of Essay Paper I or in the post evaluation process including counting of marks awarded to me by the examiner, transcription of my marks in digital form or otherwise. I therefore request the UPSC to kindly provide me the following as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act:
1.Provode me Certified copies of all the pages of my Answer Booklet of ESSAY Paper - I in respect of my Roll Number 0106438.
2. Provide me Model Answer Scrip used by the UPSC in the evaluation of my Answer Booklet of ESSAY Paper - L. Further, I also want to personally inspect my original Answer Booklet of ESSAY Paper-1. I may therefore be provided the following details.
(1) Place, Time, and Date on which I can visit to physically inspect my original Answer Booklet of ESSAY Paper-1; and (2) Contact details of the person in UPSC who would be facilitating physical inspection of my Answer Booklet of ESSAY Paper.1."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 22.06.2023 stating as under:
"Point: 1.
Copy of evaluated answer sheet (of conventional/descriptive nature) is neither provided to the candidates nor to any third party. Judgement dated 20th February, 2018 of Hon'ble Supreme Court on disclosure of raw marks and evaluated answer sheets in Civil Appeal No. (s) 6159-6162 of 2013 (UPSC etc. Vs Angesh Kumar & Others etc.) with C.A. No. 5924/2013 (Joint Directors and CPIO and others Vs. T. R. Rajesh) may be referred to in this regard where Hon'ble Court has upheld Commission's stand with regard to non-disclosure of raw marks and evaluated answer sheets (of conventional/ descriptive nature).
However, keeping in view the spirit of the RTI Act as also the intent of the query raised by you, the conventional answer booklet of Essay Paper of Roll No.0106438 in respect of Civil Services (Main) Examination,2022 have been re-scrutinized w.r.. the following aspects and found that:-2
I. No part of any answer has been left unvalued.
II. The answer book used is intact.
III. There is no totalling error.
IV. There is no clerical error of any other kind.
Point: 2.
No model answer/answer script for evaluation of papers is prepared/ maintained by the Commission.
2. Shri D. Banerjee, Joint Secretary, UPSC, 4th Floor, Hall No.2, Examination Building. Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069 (E-mail ID [email protected] & Tel. No. 011-23387410) is the Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.06.2023. FAA's order, dated 07.07.2023, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate to the extent information available with him, no direction is required to the CPIO hence upheld.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Audio-Conference. Respondent: Kiran Arora, Under Secretary present in person.
The Appellant stated that she is aggrieved with the complete denial of the information and requested the Commission that complete information should be provided to her.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the RTI Application and emphasised on the square applicability of the Angesh Kumar judgment in the matter.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO. Further, the CPIO in its reply dated 22.06.2023 categorically informed the Appellant that:3
"However, keeping in view the spirit of the RTI Act as also the intent of the query raised by you, the conventional answer booklet of Essay Paper of Roll No.0106438 in respect of Civil Services (Main) Examination,2022 have been re- scrutinized w.r.. the following aspects and found that:-
I. No part of any answer has been left unvalued.
II. The answer book used is intact.
III. There is no totalling error.
IV. There is no clerical error of any other kind."
The Appellant's attention is drawn towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar in Civil Appeal No(s). 6159-6162 of 2013 with C.A No. 5924/2013 wherein para 8 records the extract of the counter affidavit filed in the matter of Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar vs. UPSC suggesting the problems in showing evaluated answer books to candidates as under:
"(B) Problems in showing evaluated answer books to candidates.--(i) Final awards subsume earlier stages of evaluation. Disclosing answer books would reveal intermediate stages too, including the so-called 'raw marks' which would have negative implications for the integrity of the examination system, as detailed in Section (C) below.
(ii) The evaluation process involves several stages.
Awards assigned initially by an examiner can be struck out and revised due to (a) totalling mistakes, portions unevaluated, extra attempts (beyond prescribed number) being later corrected as a result of clerical scrutiny, (b) The examiner changing his own awards during the course of evaluation either because he/she marked it differently initially due to an inadvertent error or because he/she corrected himself/herself to be more in conformity with the accepted standards, after discussion with Head Examiner/colleague examiners, (c) Initial awards of the Additional Examiner being revised by the Head Examiner during the latter's check of the former's work, (d) the Additional Examiner's work having been found erratic by the Head Examiner, been rechecked entirely by another examiner, with or without the Head 1 (2013) 12 SCC 489 Examiner again rechecking this work.
(iii) The corrections made in the answer book would likely arouse doubt and perhaps even suspicion in the candidate's mind. Where such corrections lead to a lowering of earlier awards, this would not only breed representations/grievances, but would likely lead to litigation. In the only evaluated answer book that has so far been shown to a candidate (Shri Gaurav Gupta in WP No. 3683 of 2012 in 4 Gaurav Gupta v. UPSC dated 6.7.2012(Del.)) on the orders of the High Court, Delhi and that too, with the marks assigned masked; the candidate has nevertheless filed a fresh WP alleging improper evaluation.
(iv) As relative merit and not absolute merit is the criterion here (unlike academic examinations), a feeling of the initial marks/revision made being considered harsh when looking at the particular answer script in isolation could arise without appreciating that similar standards have been applied to all others in the field. Non-appreciation of this would lead to erosion of faith and credibility in the system and challenges to the integrity of the system, including through litigation.
(v) With the disclosure of evaluated answer books, the danger of coaching institutes collecting copies of these from candidates (after perhaps encouraging/inducing them to apply for copies of their answer books under the RTI Act) is real, with all its attendant implications.
(vi) With disclosure of answer books to candidates, it is likely that at least some of the relevant examiners also get access to these. Their possible resentment at their initial awards (that they would probably recognise from the fictitious code numbers and/or their markings, especially for low-candidature subjects) having been superseded (either due to inter-examiner or inter-subject moderation) would lead to bad blood between Additional Examiners and the Head Examiner on the one hand, and between examiners and the Commission, on the other hand. The free and frank manner in which Head Examiners, for instance, review the work of their colleague Additional Examiners, would likely be impacted. Quality of assessment standards would suffer.
(vii) Some of the optional papers have very low candidature (sometimes only one), especially the literature papers. Even if all examiners' initials are masked (which too is difficult logistically, as each answer book has several pages, and examiners often record their initials and comments on several pages with revisions/corrections, where done, adding to the size of the problem), the way marks are awarded could itself be a give away in revealing the examiner's identity. If the masking falters at any stage, then the examiner's identity is pitilessly exposed. The 'catchment area' of candidates and examiners in some of these low-candidature papers is known to be limited. Any such possibility of the examiner's identity getting revealed in such a high-stakes examination would have serious implications, both for the integrity and fairness of the examination system and for the security and safety of the examiner. The matter is compounded by the 5 fact that we have publicly stated in different contexts earlier that the paper-setter is also generally the Head Examiner.
(viii) UPSC is now able to get some of the best teachers and scholars in the country to be associated in its evaluation work. An important reason for this is no doubt the assurance of their anonymity, for which the Commission goes to great lengths. Once disclosure of answer books starts and the inevitable challenges (including litigation) from disappointed candidates starts, it is only a matter of time before these examiners who would be called upon to explain their assessment/award, decline to accept further assignments from the Commission. A resultant corollary would be that examiners who then accept this assignment would be sorely tempted to play safe in their marking, neither awarding outstanding marks nor very low marks, even where these are deserved. Mediocrity would reign supreme and not only the prestige, but the very integrity of the system would be compromised markedly."
In view of the foregoing, it is essentially clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while arriving at the decision of precluding disclosure of marks obtained by candidates in UPSC Civil Services Exam has also assessed the aspect of disclosure of answer books.
Having observed as above, the Commission cannot order for any relief in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6