CentralInformationCommission,NewDelhi

FileNo.CIC/SM/A/2012/000135 RighttoInformationAct2005UnderSection(19)

DateofHearing6.3.2012

DateofOrder

27.3.2012

NameoftheApplicant Ms.ShipraSud

NameofthePublicAuthority commission

CPIO, Union Public Service

BriefFactsoftheCase
1. The Case involves giving information to the RTI Applicant about the Civil

Services Preliminary Exams held in May/June 2011. The Commission has takencognisanceoftheSupremeCourtorderinUPSCvs.ShivShambu(SLP 23250/2008)andtheorderdated30/09/2011inAjayKumarMishravs.UPSC (SLP(Civil)32443/2010)which allowstheDelhiHighCourtdecisioninLPA No.313/2007toholdthefield.TheDelhiHighCourtinthesaidcasehadheld: 10.AggrievedbytheorderoftheAppellateAuthority,theUPSCfiledW.P.(C) No.17583of2006inthisCourt.TheUPSCsubmittedbeforethelearnedSingle Judgethatsincetheoptionalsubjectwasnotcommontoallthecandidatesand couldbeoneofthe23offered,amethodologyhastobedevelopedtomake the marksobtainedinthedifferentsubjectscomparableacrosscandidates.This necessitated deployment of the methodology of scaling of marks. A certain scientificformulawasusedforscalingofthemarksandassuchthecutoffwas implementedsubsequenttotheexamination.AccordingtotheUPSC,ifthecut

off marks, the individual marks and the key answers to the questions were disclosed, itwouldenableunscrupulouscandidatestoreverseengineerandarriveatthe scalingsystemwhichwasacarefullyguardedsecret.AccordingtotheUPSC this wouldunderminetheveryobjectofselectingthebestcandidate.Itwasfurther arguedbeforethelearnedSingleJudgethatthedisclosureofthecutoffmarks orthescalingmethodwouldenableshortcuttechniquesbycoachinginstitutes whichwouldreducetheexaminationprocesstothelevelofmeresurmising rather than being a test of substantive knowledge. The UPSC also provided the learned SingleJudgeinformationconcerningthescreeningmethodologyinasealed cover. 11. Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted before the learned SingleJudgethattherewasnothingsecretaboutthescalingmethodsinceit had alreadybeendisclosedbytheUPSCinanaffidavitdated20thMarch2007filed byitbeforetheSupremeCourtinSLP(Civil)No.23723of2002(UnionPublic ServiceCommissionv.SatishChandraDixit).InthesaidaffidavittheUPSC had explainedthatthescalingsystemfollowedbytheUttarPradeshPSCwasa linear methodknownastheStandardDeviationmethodwhereaswhatwasfollowed by the UPSC was the Normalized Equipercentile method. 12. After going through the contents of the sealed cover the learned SingleJudgefoundthatthescalingmethodologydeployedbytheUPSCstood already disclosed in its counter affidavit filed in the Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge rejected the argument that if the information was revealed alargenumberofdummycandidateswouldbemadetotaketheexamination by

unscrupulouscoachinginstituteswhichwouldresultinthealterationofscaling ofmarksincertainspecificsubjects,therebydeprivingmeritoriousstudentsin other papers from qualifying. The learned Single Judge held: 22 The sealed marks, employing the methodology revealed by the UPSC before the Supreme Court, is clearly dependent upon the number of candidates. Thisisinherentintheformulaemployeditself.However,whattheUPSCseems toignoreisthatthecutoffmarkitselfwouldchange.Thescalingmethodology adoptedbythem,whichseeksatnormalizingthedistributioncurve,wouldtake care of the abnormalities (skewness) caused by the dummy candidates, if any.? 13. As regards the likely misuse of this information by the coaching institutes, the learned Single Judge observed: 23. It is important to note that prior to the examination, the cutoff mark wouldnotbeknown.Norwoulditbeknowntoanyofthecoachinginstitutesas tohowmanycandidatesaregoingtoappearineachoftheoptionalpapers. Apart from this, it would also not be known to anybody as to what the performanceofanycandidatewouldbeineachofthepapers.Itis,therefore, unfathomable that the coaching institutes would be able to undermine the system ofexaminationbydisclosureofthecutoffmarkofthepreviousandtheactual marksofthecandidatesofthepreviousyearwhenthemarksobtainedinany year bydifferentcandidatesisindependentofthemarksobtainedbycandidatesin anyotheryear.Theexaminationforeachyearisentirelyindependentofthe examinations of the other years. So, the data of one year would have no bearing on the data for the next year. The question papers would be different; the candidateswouldbedifferent;thecompositionofthenumberofcandidates takingeachoftheoptionalpaperswouldbedifferent.Thecutoffmarkwould notbeknownpriortotheexaminationand,therefore,revealingthedatasought bytherespondents2to24inthepresentcasewould,inmyview,haveno bearing on the sanctity of the examination system.?

14.BytheimpugnedjudgmentthelearnedSingleJudgedeclinedtointerfere with thedirectionsgivenbyCICexceptthatdirection(ii)issuedbytheCICwas modified to the extent that the cut off marks for the combined total of raw GeneralStudiesmarksandscaledoptionalpapermarkswasnotrequiredtobe disclosed. Direction (iii) was modified to the extent that UPSC would be requiredtodisclosethemodelanswers.
2. TheDelhihighCourtfurtherheld17.Attheoutsetwewishtoobservethata

perusalofthedocumentssubmittedbytheUPSCinasealedcover,arenotof suchanaturethatcanbecharacterisedassecret,orofatypethedisclosureof whichwouldnotbeinpublicinterest.Asregardsthescalingmethodology,as alreadybeenpointedoutbythelearnedSingleJudge,thisisnodifferentfrom what already stands disclosedbytheUPSCtotheSupremeCourtinitscounteraffidavitfiledinSLP (C)No.23723of2002andisthereforeinthepublicdomain.Asregardsthe apprehensionexpressedbytheUPSCthatthescalingformulationcouldbe deciphered first once the cutoff marks and solution keys in respect of individualsubjectdisclosed,wefailtounderstandhowifsuchinformationis deciphered in relationto theexaminationthat hasalready been conducted, somehow it would enable the manipulation of the results of a preliminary examinationtobeheldinfuture.
3. FinallyDivisionBenchoftheDelhiHighCourtheld 19.....Furtherstill,this

Court working

is

unable tounderstand theapprehensionof theUPSCthatbydisclosingthe of the scaling methodology for the preliminary examination, merit can get compromisedandcandidateswithlessmeritwouldbeselected.Thewhole purpose of having three levels of examination i.e. preliminary examination, main examinationandtheninterview,istoensurethatonlymeritoriouscandidates areselectedforgovernmentservice.Weareoftheviewthattheapprehension expressedbytheUPSCisnotwellfounded.
4. TheLawwasfurtherexplicatedinAjayKumarMishraandAnr.vs.UPSCand

Anr.suprainwhichitwasheldbytheSupremeCourt Thegrievanceofthe

PetitionersisthatdespitewritingtotheUPSCwithin8daysofthedeclaration oftheresultsoftheCivilServices(Preliminary)Examinations,2010seekingto knowthemarksawardedtoeachofthemaswellasthecutoffmarks,the intimationfromtheCentralPublicInformationOfficer(CPIO),UPSCdeclining the information was received only recently. The justification shown for not approachingtheAppellateAuthorityoftheUPSCandthereaftertheCentral Information Commission (CIC), but directly filing this writ petition, is that the Civil Services (Main) Examinations 2010 (?Mains?)aretobeheldon29thOctober2010,andthereforethereisnot much timeleft.ThePetitionersexpectationisthatoncethemarksawardedtoeach oftheminthePrelimsandthecutoffmarksaredisclosed,theywillbeableto demonstratethattheyhavebeenwronglykeptoutofappearingintheMains. RelianceisplacedonthedecisionofthelearnedSingleJudgeofthisCourtin Union Public Services Commission v. Central Information Commission (decision dated17thApril2007inW.P(C)No.17583of2006)andthedecisionofthe Division Bench of this Court in Union Public Service Commission v. Shiv Shambu (decisiondated3rdSeptember2008inLPANo.313of2007)affirmingthe decision of the learned Single Judge.

3.Appearingonadvancenotice,Mr.NareshKaushiklearnedcounselforthe Union PublicServiceCommission(?UPSC?)drewtheattentionofthisCourttothe orderspassedbytheSupremeCourtinSpecialLeavetoAppeal(Civil)No. 23250 of2008(UnionPublicServiceCommissionv.ShivShambu).Byanorderdated 12th December 2008 the Supreme Court stayed the order dated 3rd September 2008 of the Division Bench of this Court for a period of three months and that stay hascontinuedthereafter.TheSLPwaslistedlaston1stOctober2010andhas been directed to be listed next on 11th November 2010. 4.ThisCourtfindsthattwooftheissuesdecidedbythisCourtinUnionPublic

ServiceCommissionv.ShivShambuinvolvedthedisclosureofmarksawarded to eachoftheapplicantsinthePrelimsfortheyear2006,thecutoffmarksand thescalingsystem.Therefore,twooftheprayersinthepresentpetitionare similar to the prayers in the above case, the decision in which is pending considerationbeforetheSupremeCourt. 5.IntheconsideredviewofthisCourt,aslongastheSupremeCourtdoesnot decidetheaboveissues,andthereisastaygrantedofthejudgmentofthe DivisionBenchofthisCourt,whichshouldbeunderstoodasastayoftheorder oftheCICinthatcase,thiswritpetitioncannotbeentertained. 5. ThepresentpositioniscoveredbytheSupremeCourtorderdated30/09/2011 wherein Supreme Court has observed that In case, in future the UPSC (Respondent No. 1) is faced with any difficulty with regard to supplying information in relation to any examinations, the process of which remains incomplete,itwillbeopentoittoseekappropriateremediesinaccordancewith thelaw

DecisionNotice
6. Central Information Commission has given innumerable decisions on the disclosureofcutoffmarkstothecandidatesappearinginCivilServicesExams. Someofthemare i)ShivSambu&others(CIC/MA/A/2006/00793dated30 November2006) ii)RaviJindal(CIC/MA/C/2006/00149dated19January2007) iii)RaviJindal(CIC/WB/A/2007/00694dated27October2008) iv)PrashantKSahi(CIC/WB/A/2009/000809dated11January 2011) v)AshishGupta(CIC/WB/A/2010/000880SMDated4/2/2011) 7.
Inthiscase,theUPSChasfiledanaffidavit. TheyhavearguedthattheCSEisan integratedthreetierexaminationsysteminwhicheachtierleadstothenextstageand

theexaminationissaidtobecompleteonlywhenallthethreetiersarecompleted. Theyhavefurtherarguedthatthedisclosureofinformationaboutthemarksinthe PreliminaryExaminationhasthepotentialtoderailthesmoothconductofthefurther tiersofexaminationastheinformationcanbeusedtocausefrivolouscomplaintsand objections including court cases. Therefore, the UPSC is of the view that any informationregardingtheCSEmustbegivenonlyafterthecompletionoftheentire threetiersystemofexaminationprocessandnotatanyimmediatestage. 8. We,however,finditdifficulttoagreewiththislineofargument.Whileweadmitthatthe CSEisathreetierexaminationsystem,wedonotagreewiththeargumentthatthe preliminaryexaminationinanywaycontributestothesuccessorfailureofacandidate exceptbywayofeithereliminatinghimorallowinghimtotakethenextstageofthe examination, namely, the Mains. In other words, the preliminary examination is a standalonetesttoeliminatealargenumberofcandidatesleavingasmallnumberof successfulcandidatestotaketheMains.Theresultsofthepreliminaryexaminationdo notcontributeinanyothermannertothefinalsuccessorfailureofacandidateinthe furtherCSE. 9. TheargumentoftheUPSCthatthedisclosureofmarksmightderailtheexamination systemisalsonotveryconvincing. Evenifthecandidatesgettoknowabouttheir marksinthepreliminaryexamination,thereisnowaytheycanderailtheremainingtwo tiersorcauseobstructioninholdingtheMains.Ontheotherhand,thedisclosureof themarksafterthepreliminaryexaminationwouldhelpcandidatestomakeanhonest assessment of their performance so that they can prepare better for the next preliminary examination. If these marks are not disclosed immediately after the preliminaryexaminationisoverandthecandidatesaremadetowaitfornearlyone yearbeforeaccessingthesemarks,theywouldlooseawholeyearintheprocessand wouldnotknowwhytheyperformedthewaytheydid.Therefore,inouropinion,these marksshouldbedisclosed.

10.

DelhiHighCourtinLPANo.817/2010tookthesimilarviewandheldThose whoareknockedoutbeforetheinterviewevenanddidnothaveachanceto competeanyfurther,aredefinitelyentitledtoknowthattheyhavenotbeen knockedoutarbitrarilytodeprivethemfromevencompetinganyfurther.This isalsothepracticeUPSCfollowsatthestageofMainsexaminationasUPSC uploadsthemarkssheetoftheunsuccessfulcandidatesonitswebsitewithin 15daysofdeclarationofresultsofMainsExaminationbasedonthefactual matrixthatquatheunsuccessfulcandidatetheexaminationprocesshascome toanend.

11.

ThesynchronisedreadingoftheSupremeCourtorder,DelhiHighCourtorder andthedecisionofFullbenchoftheCICquotedaboveleadsustoconclude thattheRTIapplicantistobegiventhefollowinginformation

A. ThecopiesofherOMRSheetsforPaper1andPaperIIinconsonancewith
DelhiHighCourtdecisioninWritPetition(Civil)747/2011andLPA817/2010

B. Sectionalcutoffinbothpapers,ifany C. CutoffforGeneralcategoryinPaper1andPaperIIseparatelyasperDelhi
HighCourtorderinLPA313/2007whichholdsthefieldafterthedecisionofthe Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 23250/2008 and 32443/2010. 12. TheExaminationProcessquatheRTIApplicantMs.ShipraSudhascometo anendoncetheMainsExaminationfor2011hasbegunandshehasnotbeen foundfittocontinueinthe3stageselectionprocess.Wedonotagreewiththe UPSC that disclosure of the details of marks and the answer sheet (OMR sheet)couldpotentiallystalltheentireexaminationprocess. Theanticipation thatcandidatescan,armedwithsuchinformation,approachhighercourtsand obtain stay of the entire examination process or get orders to include themselves is farfetched. This would amount to fearing that higher courts wouldnotapplytheirmindswhenconfrontedwithpleasfromcandidatesand wouldmechanicallypassordersderailingtheexaminationprocessorconfer benefitsonundeservingcandidates. 13. Withthesedirections,theappealisallowed.Thecopiesoftheordermaybe giventothepartiesfreeofcost.

SatyanandaMishra ChiefInformationCommissioner AuthenticatedtrueCopies (VijayBhalla) DeputyRegistrar