RTI Application to know evaluation of Marks in Civil Service (Main ) Exam Conducted by UPSC (Union Public Service Commission )
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000346/SG/13721
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000346/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant: : Mr. Milan Verma
H. No. 50, Atam Nagar,
Ludhiana
Respondent: : Dr. Kulbir Singh
PIO & Joint Director,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi- 110069
RTI application: 07/06/2010
PIO reply: 05/07/2010
First appeal 27/07/2010
FAA order 10/09/2010
Second appeal 11/11/2010
Information sought:
It is submitted that the applicant has appeared in the Civil Services (Main) Examination -2009 with Roll no. 044726. The applicant requires the following information under RTI-2005 with regard to Civil Services (Main) Examination -2009 Optional-II, Public Administration Paper VIII (Paper-i of Public Administration)
1. Marks allotted (Answer wise) for every attempted question. ( Please note I require marks obtained for
every individual question attempted by roe including parts/sub parts separately)
2. Number of Answer sheets attached with the Main Answer Sheet of this paper.
3. Please mention the number written by me in the space provided in the answer sheet for Number of
Sheets attached.
4. Whether I have been evaluated from entire 300 Marks?
5. Is there any question/part of question not attempted by me for which no marks are allotted tome?
6. Please mention the serial number of the questions for which I have not been evaluated.
7. Copy of my answer sheet of this paper (Public Administration Paper VIII, first paper).
8 Whether the evaluation of my answers have been made on the basis of any answer key/guidelines for
evaluation by the examiner who has evaluated my paper.
9. Provide me the copy of such answer key is paper.
On receipt of information under this application, I intend to carry out actual inspection of records at your
office. I may be permitted such inspection.
PIO’s reply:
2. In this regard, point-wise information is furnished as under: Point No.(I):- Moderation is an inherent
part of the evaluation process (as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UPPSC Vs Shri Sanjay
Page 1 of 3
Singh, UPPSC[WP(Civil) No.165/2005] in any large public examination. Moderation is applied on the
initial marks awarded assigned and hence the final marks awarded to a candidate (which are the marks
reckoned for drawing up the merit list) cannot be broken down in-to question-wise marks.
Therefore,notwithstanding and without prejudice to other exemptions that can be invoked under the RTI Act, the required information does not subsist at the end of the evaluation process, and hence cannot be furnished.
Points No.(2) & (3):- The information is generated by you yourself and as held by CIC in CIC/AT/A12006/04l1 dated 5.12.2006 (G.P.S. Rana V/s Delhi Police), the applicant can not ask for
information for which he himself is the source, under the RTJ Act. Further, such information is not
maintained/held separately as sought and any attempt at furnishing the information would require sifting
through lakhs of answer books of thousands of candidates to collate the same. This would be grossly disproportionate diversion of resources without any public interest being served. This therefore is an unreasonable demand in term of judgement order No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000291+000300 dated 18.03.2010.
Besides, as any attempt at supply of the information would, in any case, involve compiling/collating &
reshaping of data/information, which is not required to be done in accordance with DOPT’s clarification
O.M. No.11/2/2008-JR of dated 10.07.2008.
Point No.(4):- A judgemental view/clarification from the CPIO has been asked, which is not covered
under the scope of “information” as defined under 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Point No.(5):- The meaning of the question, in which double negatives have been used, is not clear. It is
not clear how marks can be allotted for questions not attempted by candidate.
Point No.(6):- The Public Authority/CPIO is not expected to analyse and make deductions to answer RTI
queries, as it is beyond the scope of 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Point No.(7) :- The photocopy of answer book cannot be given to the candidate in pursuance of a
judgement delivered by CIC Ref.CJC/OK/A/2006/00266/00058/00066/003 15 and
CICIWB/A12006/00469 & 00394 dated 23.04.2007.
Points No.(8) & (9):- No “answer keys”/model answers are prepared by the Commission for
‘Conventional’ papers. At the meeting of Examiners (Head Examiner & Addl. Examiners), the Paper is
thoroughly discussed and evaluation standards (including possible answers to all questions) are agreed
upon decided between the Examiners. Based on these, evaluation is/has been undertaken.
Grounds for First appeal:
Refusal of information not justified.
FAA order:
Upheld the order of the PIO.
Grounds for Second appeal:
The CPIO has falsely claimed that in order to provide information to the applicant from the answer sheet will require him “sifting through lakhs of answer books of thousands of candidates”. Sir this is an
absolutely false statement as there can not be more that 2 to 3 thousand answer booklets for Public Administration and even in case of poorest record keeping the answer booklet can be found in not more than 2 minutes as all the booklets carry specific roll numbers to it.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Milan Verma on video conference at NIC-Ludhiana Studio;
Respondent: Dr. Kulbir Singh, PIO & Joint Director;
The PIO has given most of the information but now directed to provide the following information:
1- Query-1: Marks allotted (Answer wise) for every attempted question. The marks on the
answersheet as they exist will be sent to the Appellant. If there are no marks in the answer
sheet this should stated.
2- Query-2: Number of answersheets attached with the main answersheet of the Appellant’s
paper.
Page 2 of 3
The PIO has stated that with regard to query-1 the marks are moderated. The Commission is only ordering
that the actual marks as they exist on the answersheet must be provided. The PIO had also taken a stand
that it is practically very difficult for UPSC to locate an answersheet. The appellant has stated that he had
written to UPSC to re-total his marks in the answersheet. Mr. Dipta Bhanudas, Under Secretary, UPSC
written to the Appellant on 08/07/2010 that his marks has been re-totaled and found to be correct. The
Appellant therefore contends that it is practice in UPSC to re-total and verify the marks in the individual
answersheet. He therefore contends that since UPSC is taking individual answersheets and re-totaling
them the PIO’s plea that individual answersheets cannot be accessed is not correct. In view of this the
Commission accepts the Appellant’s plea that he should be given information with regards to him query-1
and the practical difficulty claimed by the PIO does not appear to be real.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on the two points as listed above to the Appellant before 25 August 2011. If the answersheets are destroyed as per the weeding out policy the Appellant will be informed and a copy of the weeding out policy alongwith a copy of the relevant pages of the destruction of the records register will be sent to the Appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
28 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (DS)
Page 3 of 3 )
Source : http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2011_000346_SG_13721_M_63780.pdf
Dear Friends,
ReplyDeleteA draft was send to Blog Editor in respect of PIL(Public Interest Litigation) to be send to Supreme Court. Contents are as pasted below:
Honourable CJI,
Supreme Court of India, New delhi
Sub: PIL in respect of delay in recruitment of teaching staff in BASIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, Uttar Pradesh
Sir,
1. RTE (Right to Education) has been implemented in our Country and States/UTs have been instructed to follow the guidelines issued by NCTE (National Counsil for Teacher Eduaction) and Human Resource Department to ensure compulsory and free education to children age between 6-14 years.
2. To ensure quality of teaching staff, TET (Teacher eligibility test) has to be conducted by State Govt. and any person scoring at least 60% of the total marks are considered to be eligible to become a teacher. States/ UTs were authorized to provide reservation based of their policies.
3. It is brought to your kind information that Teacher Eligibility Test(UPTET-2011) was conducted by U P Govt. on 13 Nov 2011 and result was declared on 25 Nov 2011. Result was updated by Department several times on instruction of High Court, Allahabad as answer of some question were found wrong/ ambiguous. Aprox 11,50,000 candidates appeared in the test and 2,50,000 were declared successful in primary level.
4. Advertisement for filling 72,825 teaching staff in Primary Level was also published in various News papers during the month of Nov-2011 and application were invited for filling of these teaching posts.
5. Recruitment of teaching could not be taken place due to election in Uttar Pradesh and electoral code of conduct was implemented in state. Now, election is over, code of conduct is also over but recruitment process yet to be started.
6. Each Candidate has spend Approx Rs. 10,000-12,000 in submission of Application including Demand Draft, photocopying of documents, Speed-post expenses etc and still they are facing the state of dilemma about their recruitment. They are facing extremely sorrowfulness since long and waiting for the recruitment process to be started.
7. Other than 2,50,000 candidates which are waiting for recruitment, the delay in recruitment will also affect Primary Education is the state. The future of approx 72,000X30 = 62,10,000 students ( 30 students is a class) is also on the stake.
8. There are approx 25,000 candidates which are on the edge of the competitive age i.e. 35 years.
Day by day news is coming - TET is going to cancel, Rules are going to change etc.,
We did each and every thing as per NCTE guideline and Government order, But now we are mentally depressed and facing problems.
9. Leaving children in hand of untrained teachers/ Shiksha Mitras will be not a wise idea when approx 2,50,000 trained, TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) qualified candidates waiting for recruitment.
10. Considering the bread and butter of 72,825 X 5 = 3,64,125( 5 members in a family approx) and future of approx 62,10,000 students age between 6-14 years, you are requested to look into the matter seriously in interest of mass and instruct Uttar Pradesh Govt/ High Court to start recruitment process without delay based on the original advertisement(without change).
Lets have a group efforts to correct/edit the draft. All willingly blog visitors are requested to put their view in respect of above draft.
Kya ye send kar diya?If not nake kaam deri kaisi. Ya hume 13 ka wait karna chahiye?
ReplyDeleteMuskan ji , kya ye work e-mail se bhi ho sakta hai?
ReplyDeleteIf anybody want to send this PIL than Email ID of Supreme court is given below
ReplyDeletesupremecourt@nic.in
with love and regards
Puneet
@ tiwari ji
ReplyDeleteise thik se sanshodhit kare
There is a point missing about stay order implemented by h.c alhbd.
ReplyDeleteThank you, noted.
ReplyDelete