Central Information Commission, New Delhi

File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/002046
Under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act
Date of hearing : 24.05.2012
Date of decision : 10.07.2012
Name of the Appellant : Dr. A. Arun Thamburaj
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
e!Delhi
Appellant was present in NIC Studio Chennai
Respondents were represented by learned Senior Counsel Shri
Naresh Kaushik.
Chief Information Commissioner: Shri Satyananda Mishra
Facts:
1. Dr. A. Arun Thamburaj, hereinafter the Appellant, filed RTI Application
Dated 1 !a" #$11 to the %&I', (nion &ublic )er*ice %ommission, +e,
Delhi see-in. the follo,in. information:
A. The no. of pages and answer sheets written by Appellant in Zoology
Paper I and II in the Civil Services Mains Exaination !"#" bearing
$oll no. !%&'( held on )oveber #! !"#".
1
*. The )+ber of Additional Answer sheets +sed by Appellant in the
Zoology Paper I and II.
C. Page wise Mar,s awarded in each page in Zoology Paper I and II.
D. -+estion wise ar,s awarded for each -+estion in Zoology Paper I and
II.
E. )+ber of answer sheets ta,en +p for eval+ation in Zoology Paper I and
II.
.. Photocopies of y written answer scripts of Zoology Paper I and II ay
,indly be provided.
#. In his 'rder dated /une #$11, %&I' replied ,ith respect to &oints no. 1, #,
and 0 of the RTI Application that information is not bein. maintained in the
format as desired b" the RTI Applicant and %&I' shall not ta-e an" research
to collect and compile those aspects of information.
1. 2ith respect to &oints no. 1 and 3 of the RTI Application, %&I' replied that
4uestion ,ise5pa.e no. ,ise mar-s are not maintained. As moderation is
re4uired ,ith respect to the total mar-s secured b" the candidates, therefore
at the end of the e*aluation, 4uestion ,ise mar-s do not subsist and therefore
cannot be pro*ided to the Appellant.
3. 2ith respect to &oint no. 6, %&I' replied 4uotin. the %I% Decision
%I%5275A5#$$65$$13 dated #1535#$$8 in ,hich it ,as clearl" decided that
%onstitutional bodies li-e (&)% ,hose main function is to conduct the
e9amination need not disclose the e*aluated ans,er sheets under RTI Act,
#$$0.
#
0. +ot satisfied ,ith the repl" of the %&I', the Appellant preferred first Appeal
to the First Appellate Authorit" dated 1 /une #$11.
6. In his 'rder Dated 1$ /une #$11, FAA informed the Appellant that he is
satisfied ,ith the decision ta-en b" the %&I' as it is in line ,ith the earlier
decisions of the %I% not allo,in. the disclosure of Ans,er sheets.
8. 7ein. a..rie*ed and not bein. satisfied b" the abo*e response of the public
authorit", the appellant preferred second appeal before the %ommission
dated 1$ Au.ust #$11.
:. !atter ,as heard toda" on priorit" basis based on the obser*ation made b"
the !adras ;i.h %ourt in the case A. Arun Thamburaj *. (&)%, +e, Delhi
2rit &etition no. #180$5#$11 dated 8 Februar" #$1#, in ,hich same matter
,as at issue.
The ;i.h %ourt had obser*ed:
/0The said 1+estion re1+ires no consideration in this writ petition2
as adittedly the re1+est of the petitioner for s+ch inforation had
been denied by the two a+thorities of the respondent34PSC +nder the
$ight to Inforation Act and a f+rther appeal to the appellate
a+thority +nder the Act is also pending. The petitioner would be
entitled to pursue his remedy under the Act before the appellate
authority in the pending appeal. .or that reason2 we are not inclined
to express any opinion on the 1+estion as to whether the petitioner
wo+ld be entitled to per+sal of the answer scripts prod+ced before
this Co+rt as per o+r earlier direction05
. At the hearin., the Appellant i.e. Dr. A. Arun Thamburaj ,as present
throu.h *ideoconferencin. at %hennai ,hile the Respondents ,ere
represented throu.h the )enior %ounsel )hri +aresh <aushi-.
1
1$. Appellant broadl" submitted that disclosure of ans,er sheets ,ith respect to
the =9amination bodies has been allo,ed b" the ;onble )upreme %ourt in
the case of Central *oard of Secondary Ed+cation and Anr.6s. Aditya
*andopadhyay and 7rs. in %i*il Appeal +o. 6303 of #$11 dated Au.ust
#$11. The Appellant further submitted that the said la, applied to the
present case, his o,n ans,er sheet should be allo,ed for disclosure under
RTI Act, #$$0 after dul" se*erin. the names and5or si.natures of the
e9aminer of the ans,er sheet. It ,as further said that he is onl" as-in. for
the disclosure of the ans,er sheets and not for re*aluation of the ans,er
sheets. The Appellant as per his submission has been a bri.ht student
throu.hout his career and has been a topper in the >oolo." subject and
hence the lo, score attained b" him in the e9amination conducted b" (&)%
has resulted into the filin. of present RTI Application.
11. Respondent submitted that (&)% !ains e9amination is a special
e9amination conducted at a national le*el in multiple subjects and
lan.ua.es. It is conducted for the selection5recruitment of candidates for the
?o*ernment post. The said e9amination stands at a different footin.
compared to the 7oard =9aminations conducted at class 1$
th
and 1#
th
le*el of
the different schools of India b" %entral 7oard of )econdar" =ducation or
other similar %entral5)tate 7oards. Also, the methodolo." of the e*aluation
of the Ans,er sheets b" the (&)% is confidential in nature, unli-e %7)=
and disclosure of ans,er sheets ma" also re*eal the said methodolo."
in*ol*ed in the said e*aluation. The Respondents further submitted that
disclosure of the said ans,er sheet of the Appellant ,ould not ser*e an"
rational purpose as the re*aluation of the Ans,er sheets is not allo,ed as
per the rules of the (&)% =9amination. Another issue raised b" the
respondents that for certain lan.ua.es5subjects onl" few e9aminers are
3
a*ailable and disclosure of the ans,er sheets in those subjects ay
indirectly disclose the identit" of those few e9aminers.
Decision o"ice
1#. The %ommission has heard the submissions of the respecti*e parties in
detail. As submitted b" the respondents, the information i.e. e*aluated
ans,er sheets ,ritten b" Appellant in >oolo." &aper I and II in the %i*il
)er*ices !ains =9amination #$1$ has been presentl" held b" the &ublic
Authorit" and has not been destro"ed as per the pre*ailin. rules.
11. The core iss+e in the present case is that ,hether the ans,er sheets ,ritten
b" Appellant in >oolo." &aper I and II in the %i*il )er*ices !ains
=9amination #$1$ held on +o*ember 1#, #$1$ can be disclosed under the
RTI Act, #$$0.
13. After /ud.ment of the ;onble )upreme %ourt in Central *oard of
Secondary Ed+cation and Anr. 6s. Aditya *andopadhyay and 7rs. in %i*il
Appeal +o. 6303 of #$11 dated Au.ust #$11, the le.al dictum is clear that
e*aluated ans,er sheets are ,ithin the pur*ie, of information under
section # @fA of the Act and disclosure of Ans,er sheets of an e9amination
conducted b" an" e9amination bod" bein. public authorit" is mandated
under the RTI Act, #$$0. The %ourt has obser*ed:
BCThe definition of DinformationD in )ection #@fA of the RTI Act refers to an" material in
an" form ,hich includes records, documents, opinions, papers amon. se*eral other
enumerated items. The term DrecordD is defined in )ection #@iA of the said Act as includin.
an" document, manuscript or file amon. others.
0
2hen a candidate participates in an e9amination and ,rites his ans,ers in an ans,erE
boo- and submits it to the e9aminin. bod" for e*aluation and declaration of the result,
the ans,erEboo- is a document or record. 2hen the ans,erEboo- is e*aluated b" an
e9aminer appointed b" the e9aminin. bod", the e*aluated ans,erEboo- becomes a record
containin. the DopinionD of the e9aminer. Therefore the e*aluated ans,erEboo- is also an
DinformationD under the RTI ActCFGemphasis addedH
10. The %ommission ,ould li-e to ta-e each submissions made b" the
Respondents indi*iduall".
aA The main contention of the respondents is that the disclosure of the
ans,er sheets ,ritten b" Appellant in >oolo." &aper I and II in the %i*il
)er*ices !ains =9amination #$1$ ,ould re*eal the
methodolo."5procedure for secret e*aluation of ans,er sheets, pre*ailin.
at the (&)%.
16. The abo*e contention is fla,ed in t,o ,a"s, @1A the criteria of e*aluation
,ould not be disclosed b" the -no,led.e of the mar-s pro*ided to the
ans,er in each of the 4uestions. Further the mar-s ,ei.hta.e allotted to each
4uestion is alread" in the &ublic Domain. @#A The personal details of the
e9aminers ,ould be se*ered under section 1$ of the Act and hence the
e*aluation criteria of the indi*idual e9aminer ,ould certainl" not come
under the public domain and thus disclosure of the ans,er sheets ,ritten b"
Appellant ,ould not re*eal the methodolo."5procedure for secret e*aluation
of ans,er sheets, pre*ailin. at the (&)%.
18. In the 'rder of the Delhi ;i.h %ourt in the case A88 I)9IA I)STIT4TE 7.
ME9ICA8 SCIE)CES 6s. 6I:$A)T *;4$IA I&A +o.3:85#$11 dated #:
!a" #$1#, the di*ision bench has allo,ed the non disclosure of the %ertified
copies of original 1+estions papers of all ! %h superEspecialt" entrance
e9am conducted from #$$0E#$1$ under RTI Act statin. that said 4uestion
6
papers are in the nature of the intellectual &ropert" of the AII!). 7ut in
the present case, the Ans,er sheets of the Appellant cannot be considered as
Intellectual &ropert" of the (&)% ,hich cannot be disclosed under the RTI
Act, #$$0. Also, the non disclosure ,as due to the possibilit" of as-in.
limited 4uestions under AII!) =9amination but ,ith (&)% =9amination no
such contention has been made b" the Respondents.
1:. The ne9t issue raised b" the respondents is about certain lan.ua.es5subjects
in ,hich onl" a few e9aminers are a*ailable and disclosure of the ans,er
sheets in those subjects ay indirectly disclose the identit" of those few
e9aminers. This contention also cannot be accepted b" the %ommission as
e*en the .radin. .i*en in the Annual %onfidential Reports are no,
disclosed under the RTI Act and despite name and other personal details
ma" be se*ered before disclosure, the Applicant ma" be indirectly aware of
the person@sA ,ho ha*e prepared5mar-ed the A%R. If the ar.ument of the
respondents is blindl" accepted then all the A%R .radin. disclosure should
not be allo,ed under the RTI Act, for a remote possibilit" of threat to the
life of the person@sA ,ho ha*e prepared5mar-ed the A%R. The RTI cannot be
implemented in such hard boundsJ it needs practical implications and not
theoretical ima.inations. In an" case, there shall remain no trace of an"
si.nature, name or reference to the e9aminer as all this ,ill be deleted before
the disclosure.
bAThe ne9t contention raised b" the Respondents is that the /ud.ment of the
;onble )upreme %ourt in Central *oard of Secondary Ed+cation and
Anr.6s. Aditya *andopadhyay and 7rs applies onl" to the 7oard
=9amination conducted at class 1$
th
and 1#
th
le*el of the different schools of
8
India b" %entral 7oard of )econdar" =ducation or other similar
%entral5)tate 7oards.
1A The %ommission is of the *ie, that Respondents are ha*in. restrictive
interpretation of the term e9amination bodies in the said /ud.ment of the
;onble )upreme %ourt. The said jud.ment does not specificall" sho, that
the e9pression e9aminin. bodies does not include the e9amination
conducted for the selection5recruitment of candidates for the ?o*ernment
post b" (&)%. The jud.ment discuses the =9amination conducted b" the
7oard, but that is because the C*SE is the petitioner in the said caseJ
ho,e*er, the court has not purposefull" e9cluded the &ublic Authorities
conductin. the e9amination for the emplo"ment purposes. In the absence of
the conclusi*e definition of the term e9amination bodies, the same has to
be .i*en ,ider implication.
#$.A If the contention of the (&)% is accepted, it ,ill impl" that all e9aminations
conducted for promotion and recruitment, etc b" different public authorities,
speciall" 7an-in. and Insurance industr" ,ould become outside the pur*ie,
of the RTI Act. This ,ill be a.ainst the *er" objecti*e of the RTI Act to
enhance transparenc" in the ,or-in. of the &ublic Authorities. ;ence the
%ontention raised b" the Respondents cannot be accepted b" the
%ommission.
#1A Further, Delhi ;i.h %ourt in 7riental Ins+rance Copany 8iited v.
Tanayee $an<an 2.&.@%A 1185#$11 Dated #1 Februar" #$1# has allo,ed the
disclosure of ans,er sheets under RTI Act for the =9amination conducted b"
the 'riental Insurance %ompan" Iimited on 13565#$$ for promotional
:
purposes. The said e9amination is onl" conducted for
&romotional5emplo"ment purposes and not for )chool 7oard e9amination.
The Delhi ;i.h %ourt has obser*ed:
/ The petitioner2 7riental Ins+rance Copany 8iited assails the
decision dated #=."'.!"#" passed by the Central Inforation Coission
whereby the Central Inforation Coission directed the petitioner to
provide the inforation so+ght by the petitioner i.e.2 the answer sheet
of the petitioner in respect of the prootional exa held on #>."=.!""&
wherein the respondent participated +nder roll no. %%"!?. In view of the
decision of the S+pree Co+rt in C.*.S.E vs. Aditya *andopadhyay @!"##A ?
SCC >&' the challenge to the ip+gned decision cannot s+cceed. The
petitioner is bo+nd to provide the answer sheet to the respondent
1+eriest.5 Bephasis addedC
##.A The ne9t contention ta-en b" the Respondents is that the disclosure of the
ans,er sheets of the !ains =9amination ,ould disproportionatel" di*ert the
resources of the &ublic Authorit". This ar.ument ta-en b" the &ublic
Authorit" is fla,ed as compared to the la,hs of ans,er sheets e*aluated b"
%7)= e*er" "ear ,hich is under the RTI Act, #$$0, the (&)% !ains
=9amination are limited in numbers and thus ,ould certainl" not
disproportionatel" di*ert the resources of the &ublic Authorit". ;o,e*er, the
%ommission is not as-in. the Respondents to preser*e the Ans,er sheets
be"ond the record retention schedule of the (&)%. The ri.ht to access
information does not e9tend be"ond the period durin. ,hich the (&)% is
e9pected to retain the ans,erEboo-s.
#1.A The %ommission ,ould also li-e to hi.hli.ht the point ta-en b" the ;onble
)upreme %ourt in Inst. of Chartered Acco+ntants of ... 6s Sha+na, ; Sayta
D 7rs. in %i*il Appeal +o. 8081 'F #$11 dated # )eptember, #$11:

/0Exaining bodies li,e ICAI sho+ld change their old indsets and t+ne the to the
new regie of disclos+re of axi+ inforation. P+blic a+thorities sho+ld realiEe that
in an era of transparency2 previo+s practices of +nwarranted secrecy have no longer a
place. Acco+ntability and prevention of corr+ption is possible only thro+gh
transparency. Attaining transparency no do+bt wo+ld involve additional wor, with
reference to aintaining records and f+rnishing inforation. Parliaent has enacted the
$TI Act providing access to inforation2 after great debate and deliberations by the Civil
Society and the Parliaent. In its wisdo2 the Parliaent has chosen to exept only
certain categories of inforation fro disclos+re and certain organiEations fro the
applicability of the Act. As the exaining bodies have not been exepted2 and as the
exaination processes of exaining bodies have not been exepted2 the exaining
bodies will have to gear theselves to coply with the provisions of the $TI Act.
Additional wor,load is not a defence. If there are practical ins+ro+ntable diffic+lties2 it
is open to the exaining bodies to bring the to the notice of the governent for
consideration so that any changes to the Act can be deliberated +pon. *e that as it ay.
!=. Fe however agree that it is necessary to a,e a distinction in regard to inforation
intended to bring transparency2 to iprove acco+ntability and to red+ce corr+ption2
falling +nder section >@#A@bA and @cA and other inforation which ay not have a bearing
on acco+ntability or red+cing corr+ption. The copetent a+thorities +nder the $TI Act
will have to aintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency2 the deand
for inforation does not reach +nanageable proportions affecting other p+blic
interests2 which incl+de efficient operation of p+blic a+thorities and governent2
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive inforation and opti+ +se of liited fiscal
reso+rces.5
#3.A Thus In the li.ht of the abo*e obser*ations, %ommission directs the
Respondents to disclose the e*aluated ans,er sheets ,ritten b" Appellant in
>oolo." &aper I and II in the %i*il )er*ices !ains =9amination #$1$ held
on +o*ember 1# #$1$ after dul" se*erin. the names and5or si.natures of the
=9aminer or an" other third part" information ,ithin one ,ee- of the receipt
of the 'rder.
25.) %opies of this order be .i*en free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
1$
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
11