Answer Posted / sapna jain

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01207 dated 11.10.2007
Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19
Appellant - Shri Ullas Jain
Respondent - Staff Selection Board, (SSC)
Dep’t. of Personnel & Training (DoPT)
Facts:
By an application of 9.4.07 Shri Ullas Jain of Jaipur
applied to the CPIO, SSC seeking the following information:
“(a) I am a candidate of SSC Graduate Level (Main) Exam
2005. My Roll No is 1702513. Please furnish the marks
obtained by me in the following papers of Scheme ‘A’ of
above exam.
(i) General studies.
(ii) English.
(iii) Arithmetic.
(iv) Language comprehension.
(v) Communication skill and writing ability.
(b) Also furnish the merit position number obtained by me
in the written part of scheme –A of SSC graduate level
(Main) Exam 2005.
(c) Also state the fees required to be paid for obtaining
photocopies of evaluated answer sheets of all five papers
of above exam.’
To this he received a response on 26.4.07, as follows:
“I am directed to refer to your letter dated 9.4.2007
requesting information under RTI Act relating to Graduate
Level (Main) Examination, 2005 and to say there is no
provision for providing photocopies of all used answer
sheet in the combined graduate Level (Main) Examination,
2005. As regards your request for providing marks, the
final result of the Combined Graduate Level (Main)
Examination 2005 is yet to be declared by the Commission.
In view of this, Commission is not in a position to provide
the requisite information.”
1
Aggrieved by this decision, Shri Jain moved a first appeal
before the First Appellate Authority on 7.5.07 upon which
he received an order from Shri L. Vishwanathan, Director
dated 23.5.07 as follows:
“It is again reiterated that your request cannot be acceded
to till the declaration of the final result of Combined
Graduate Level (Main) Examination, 2005.
No merit list is maintained for not selected candidates.
There is no provision in the Commission for providing Xerox
copies of OMR Sheet/ answer sheets, so no question should
arise for the required fee to get Xerox copies of OMR /
answer sheets.”
The appeal was heard through video conferencing on
22.1.2009. The following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Jaipur
Shri Ullas Jain
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Shri V. K. Aggarwal, Under Secy. SSC / CPIO
Smt. Gayatri Sharma, Dy. Secy. (F.A.A.)
CPIO Shri V. K. Aggarwal, U.S. submitted that now results
have been declared, in consequence to which by a letter of
7.1.09 the following information has been conveyed to
appellant Shri Ullas Jain:
“(a) You, (Roll number 1702513) had secured total 370 marks
in Assistant Stream, 365 marks in CBI Stream in the written
part and 68 marks in Interview in scheme ‘A’ of Combined
Graduate Level Exam, 2005.
(b) Merit position number is allotted only to the finally
selected candidates.
(c) There is no provision of giving photocopies of
evaluated answer sheets to the candidates.
In this connection, it is stated that earlier vide our
letter No. 1/1/2007-RTI/3 dated 26.4.2007 and 23.5.2007,
you were informed that your request for providing marks
cannot be acceded to by the Commission till the declaration
of the final result of Combined Graduate Level (Main) Exam
2005. As the final result of the said exam has since been
declared by the Commission, the aggregate marks obtained by
you in the written part of each stream and also 2
your interview marks are being informed to you, as per
policy of this Commission.”
A copy of the statement provided to Shri Ullas Jain, Roll
No. 1702513 was also submitted together with the following
report of 15.1.09 addressed to this Commission:
“Commission has already made available the requisite
information which his available with the Commission to Shri
Ullas Jain of 5D-10 Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan
302004, and copy of which is enclosed for your ready
reference. As per the policy of the Commission, Commission
is giving aggregate marks after the final declaration of
the result. It is always the endeavour of the Commission to
provide the information which is readily available with it
to the RTI applicants.”
Appellant Shri Ullas Jain submitted that although indeed he
has received the aggregate marks, these are not paper-wise
and no merit list has been provided. In response it was
explained by respondent Ms. Gayatri Sharma, DS that the SSC
does not maintain any merit list of candidates other than
the successful candidates. Moreover, although the SSC is in
possession of marks paper wise, because of the huge number
of candidates participating in the examination process,
issuing these to the public would inordinately occupy the
limited resources of the SSC in servicing rather than
focusing on its principal objectives.
DECISION NOTICE
Under sec. 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
the “right to information” has been defined as follows:
2(j)
"right to information" means the right to information
accessible under this Act which is held by or under the
control of any public authority1 “
1 Underlined by us for emphasis
3
Under the circumstances we agree that only such information
as is held by the public authority can in fact be
disclosed. On the question of disclosure of marks in
individual examinations, we agree that placing this in the
public domain would “disproportionately divert the
resources of the public authority”. Hence for this purpose
appellant Shri Ullas Jain may be invited to the office
premises of the SSC to inspect the marks sheet for this
purpose on any date convenient to him in the month of
March, 2009.
On the question of answer sheets, the following is the
decision of this Commission of 16.4.’07 in Appeal Nos.
CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394;
CIC/OK/A/2006/00266/00058/00066 &00315 Rakesh Kumar Singh &
Ors vs. Lok Sabha Secretariat & Ors.
39. In regard to public examinations conducted by
institutions established by the Constitution like UPSC or
institutions established by any enactment by the Parliament
or Rules made thereunder like CBSE, Staff Selection
Commission, Universities., etc, the function of which is
mainly to conduct examinations and which have an
established system as fool-proof as that can be, and which,
by their own rules or regulations prohibit disclosure of
evaluated answer sheets or where the disclosure of
evaluated answer sheets would result in rendering the
system unworkable in practice and on the basis of the
rationale followed by the Supreme Court in the above two
cases, we would like to put at rest the matter of
disclosure of answer sheets. We therefore decide that in
such cases, a citizen cannot seek disclosure of the
evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act, 2005.
40. Insofar as examinations conducted by other public
authorities, the main function of which is not of
conducting examinations, but only for filling up of posts
either by promotion or by recruitment, be it limited or
public, the rationale of the judgments of the Supreme Court
may not be applicable in their totality, as in arriving at
their conclusions, the above judgments took into
consideration various facts like the large number of
candidates, the method and criteria of selection of
examiners, existence of a fool-proof system with proper
checks and balances etc. Therefore, in respect of these
examinations, the disclosure of the answer sheets shall be
the general rule but each case may have to be examined
individually to see as to whether disclosure of evaluated
answer sheets would render the system unworkable in
practice. If
4
that be so, the disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets
could be denied but not otherwise. However, while doing so
the concerned authority should ensure that the name and
identity of the examiner, supervisor or any other person
associated with the process of examination is in no way
disclosed so as to endanger the life or physical safety of
such person. If it is not possible to do so in such cases,
the authority concerned may decline the disclosure of the
evaluated answer sheets u/s 8 (1) (g).
For this reason, the decision of the SSC on this subject is
upheld. The appeal is thus allowed in part. There will be
no cost.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given
free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
22.1.2009
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
22.1 .2009

i am appearing an examination of assistant inspector of excise and the matter of fact is, i have no clue. can anyone help me out with likely questions?????

2919

Please send me last 5 year solved question papers of Canara Bank as well as Bank of Baroda to my e mail id

2795

Can anybody tell me how to prepare for the interview of SSC Scientific assistants

2822

Chola's local-government had assemblies of

2928