About Scaling of marks in UPSC Selection Process

About Scaling of marks in UPSC Selection Process

***********
Source : http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2012_000135_M_79899.pdf

According to the UPSC, if the cutoff marks,   the   individual   marks   and   the   key   answers   to   the   questions   were disclosed, it would enable unscrupulous candidates to reverse engineer and arrive at the scaling system which was a carefully guarded secret. According to the UPSC this would undermine the very object of selecting the best candidate. It was further argued before the learned Single Judge that the disclosure of the cut off marks or the scaling method would enable short cut techniques by coaching institutes
which would  reduce the examination process to the level of mere surmising rather than  being  a test  of  substantive  knowledge.  The  UPSC  also  provided the learned Single Judge information concerning the screening methodology in a sealed cover.

***********
RTI Decision -

12. The Examination Process qua the RTI Applicant Ms. Shipra Sud has come to an end once the Mains Examination for 2011 has begun and she has not been found fit to continue in the 3 stage selection process. We do not agree with the UPSC that  disclosure  of the  details  of marks  and the  answer  sheet  (OMR 
sheet) could potentially stall the entire examination process.  The anticipation that candidates can, armed with such information, approach higher courts and obtain   stay   of   the   entire   examination   process   or   get   orders   to   include themselves is far­fetched.   This would amount to fearing that higher  courts
would not apply their minds when confronted with pleas from candidates and would mechanically pass orders derailing the examination process or confer benefits on undeserving candidates.
13. With these directions, the appeal is allowed. The copies of the order may be given to the parties free of cost.

**********************************************************************
The Whole Judgment in CIC (Against RTI Application )




Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000135
Right to Information Act 2005 Under Section (19)
Date of Hearing                                      6.3.2012
Date of Order 27.3.2012
Name of the Applicant                                Ms. Shipra Sud
Name of the Public Authority                   CPIO,   Union   Public   Service
commission
Brief Facts of the Case
1. The  Case  involves  giving  information  to  the  RTI  Applicant  about  the  Civil
Services Preliminary  Exams  held  in  May/June  2011.  The  Commission  has
taken cognisance of the Supreme Court order in UPSC vs. Shiv Shambu (SLP
23250/2008) and the order dated 30/09/2011 in Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. UPSC
(SLP (Civil) 32443/2010) which   allows the Delhi High Court decision in LPA
No. 313/2007 to hold the field. The Delhi High Court in the said case had held:­
“10. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, the UPSC filed W.P. (C)
No.17583 of 2006 in this Court. The UPSC submitted before the learned Single
Judge that since the optional subject was not common to all the candidates and
could be one of the 23 offered, a methodology has to be developed to make
the
marks obtained in the different subjects comparable across candidates. This
necessitated  deployment  of the methodology  of  scaling of marks. A  certain
scientific formula was used for scaling of the marks and as such the cut off was
implemented subsequent to the examination. According to the UPSC, if the cutoff
marks,   the   individual   marks   and   the   key   answers   to   the   questions   were
disclosed,
it would enable unscrupulous candidates to reverse engineer and arrive at the
scaling system which was a carefully guarded secret. According to the UPSC
this
would undermine the very object of selecting the best candidate. It was further
argued before the learned Single Judge that the disclosure of the cut off marks
or the scaling method would enable short cut techniques by coaching institutes
which would  reduce the examination process to the level of mere surmising
rather
than  being  a test  of  substantive  knowledge.  The  UPSC  also  provided the
learned
Single Judge information concerning the screening methodology in a sealed
cover.
11.   Learned   counsel   for   the   Respondents   submitted   before   the   learned
Single Judge that there was nothing secret about the scaling method since it
had
already been disclosed by the UPSC in an affidavit dated 20th March 2007 filed
by it before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 23723 of 2002 (Union Public
Service Commission v. Satish Chandra Dixit). In the said affidavit the UPSC
had
explained that the scaling system followed by the Uttar Pradesh PSC was a
linear
method known as the Standard Deviation method whereas what was followed
by   the   UPSC   was   the   Normalized   Equi­percentile   method.
12.   After   going   through   the   contents   of   the   sealed   cover   the   learned
Single Judge found that the scaling methodology deployed by the UPSC stood
already   disclosed   in   its   counter   affidavit   filed   in   the   Supreme  Court.   The
learned   Single   Judge   rejected   the   argument   that   if   the   information   was
revealed
a large number of dummy candidates would be made to take the examination
byunscrupulous coaching institutes which would result in the alteration of scaling
of marks in certain specific subjects, thereby depriving meritorious students in
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.
This is inherent in the formula employed itself. However, what the UPSC seems
to ignore is that the cut­off mark itself would change. The scaling methodology
adopted by them, which seeks at normalizing the distribution curve, would take
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
would not be known. Nor would it be known to any of the coaching institutes as
to how many candidates are going to appear in each of the optional papers.
Apart   from   this,   it   would   also   not   be   known   to   anybody   as   to   what   the
performance of any candidate would be in each of the papers. It is, therefore,
unfathomable that  the  coaching  institutes  would  be  able to  undermine  the
system
of examination by disclosure of the cut­off mark of the previous and the actual
marks of the candidates of the previous year when the marks obtained in any
year
by different candidates is independent of the marks obtained by candidates in
any other year. The examination for each year is entirely independent of the
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
candidates would be different; the composition of the number of candidates
taking each of the optional papers would be different. The cut­off mark would
not be known prior to the examination and, therefore, revealing the data sought
by the respondents 2 to 24 in the present case would, in my view, have no
bearing   on   the   sanctity   of   the   examination   system.?14. By the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge declined to interfere
with
the directions given by CIC except that direction  (ii) issued by the CIC was
modified to the extent that the  cut off marks for the  combined total of  raw
General Studies marks and scaled optional paper marks was not required to be
disclosed.   Direction   (iii)   was   modified   to   the   extent   that   UPSC   would   be
required to disclose the model answers.”
2. The Delhi high Court further held “17. At the outset we wish to observe that a
perusal of the documents submitted by the UPSC in a sealed cover, are not of
such a nature that can be characterised as secret, or of a type the disclosure of
which would not be in public interest. As regards the scaling methodology, as
already been pointed out by the learned Single Judge, this is no different from
what   already   stands
disclosed by the UPSC to the Supreme Court in its counter affidavit filed in SLP
(C) No. 23723 of 2002 and is therefore in the public domain. As regards the
apprehension expressed by the UPSC that the scaling formulation could be
deciphered   first   once   the   cut­off   marks   and   solution   keys   in   respect   of
individual subject disclosed, we fail to understand how if such information is
deciphered in  relation to the examination that has already been  conducted,
somehow  it   would  enable  the  manipulation  of  the  results  of  a  preliminary
examination to be held in future.”
3.   Finally Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held  “19.....Further still, this
Court   is
unable to understand the apprehension of the UPSC that by disclosing the
working
of  the  scaling  methodology  for  the  preliminary  examination,  merit   can  get
compromised and candidates with less merit would be selected. The whole
purpose  of  having three  levels  of  examination  i.e.  preliminary  examination,
main
examination and then interview, is to ensure that only meritorious candidates
are selected for government service. We are of the view that the apprehension
expressed by the UPSC is not well­founded.”
4. The Law was further explicated in Ajay Kumar Mishra and Anr.  vs. UPSC and
Anr. supra in which it was held by the Supreme Court “The grievance of thePetitioners is that despite writing to the UPSC within 8 days of the declaration
of the results of the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examinations, 2010 seeking to
know the marks awarded to each of them as well as the cut off marks, the
intimation from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), UPSC declining
the  information  was  received  only  recently.  The  justification  shown for  not
approaching the Appellate Authority of the UPSC and thereafter the Central
Information   Commission   (CIC),   but   directly   filing
this   writ   petition,   is   that   the   Civil   Services   (Main)   Examinations   2010
(?Mains?) are to be held on 29th October 2010, and therefore there is not
much
time left. The Petitioners expectation is that once the marks awarded to each
of them in the Prelims and the cut­off marks are disclosed, they will be able to
demonstrate that they have been wrongly kept out of appearing in the Mains.
Reliance is placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in
Union   Public   Services   Commission   v.   Central   Information   Commission
(decision
dated 17th April 2007 in W.P (C) No. 17583 of 2006) and the decision of the
Division  Bench  of  this  Court  in  Union  Public  Service  Commission  v.   Shiv
Shambu
(decision dated 3rd September 2008 in LPA No. 313 of 2007) affirming the
decision   of   the   learned   Single   Judge.
3. Appearing on advance notice, Mr. Naresh Kaushik learned counsel for the
Union
Public Service Commission (?UPSC?) drew the attention of this Court to the
orders passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.
23250
of 2008 (Union Public Service Commission v. Shiv Shambu). By an order dated
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
has continued thereafter. The SLP was listed last on 1st October 2010 and has
been   directed   to   be   listed   next   on   11th   November   2010.
4. This Court finds that two of the issues decided by this Court in Union PublicService Commission v. Shiv Shambu involved the disclosure of marks awarded
to
each of the applicants in the Prelims for the year 2006, the cut­off marks and
the scaling system. Therefore, two of the prayers in the present petition are
similar to the  prayers  in the  above  case, the  decision  in  which  is  pending
consideration before the Supreme Court.
5. In the considered view of this Court, as long as the Supreme Court does not
decide the above issues, and there is a stay granted of the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court, which should be understood as a stay of the order
of the CIC in that case, this writ petition cannot be entertained.”
5. The present position is covered by the Supreme Court order dated 30/09/2011
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, it will be open to it to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with
the law”
Decision Notice
6. Central   Information   Commission   has   given   innumerable   decisions   on   the
disclosure of cut off marks to the candidates appearing in Civil Services Exams.
Some of them are
i)  Shiv Sambu & others (CIC/MA/A/2006/00793 dated 30
November 2006)
ii) Ravi Jindal (CIC/MA/C/2006/00149 dated 19 January 2007)
iii) Ravi Jindal (CIC/WB/A/2007/00694 dated 27 October 2008)
iv) Prashant K Sahi (CIC/WB/A/2009/000809 dated 11 January
2011)
v)  Ashish Gupta (CIC/WB/A/2010/000880­SM Dated 4/2/2011)
7. In this case, the UPSC has filed an affidavit.  They have argued that the CSE is an
integrated three­tier examination system in which each tier leads to the next stage andthe examination is said to be complete only when all the three tiers are completed.
They have further argued that the disclosure of information about the marks in the
Preliminary Examination has the potential to derail the smooth conduct of the further
tiers of examination as the information can be used to cause frivolous complaints and
objections   including   court   cases.     Therefore,   the   UPSC   is   of   the   view   that   any
information regarding the CSE must be given only after the completion of the entire
three­tier system of examination process and not at any immediate stage.
8. We, however, find it difficult to agree with this line of argument. While we admit that the
CSE is a three­tier examination system, we do not agree with the argument that the
preliminary examination in any way contributes to the success or failure of a candidate
except by way of either eliminating him or allowing him to take the next stage of the
examination, namely, the Mains.   In other words, the preliminary examination is a
stand alone test to eliminate a large number of candidates leaving a small number of
successful candidates to take the Mains.  The results of the preliminary examination do
not contribute in any other manner to the final success or failure of a candidate in the
further CSE.
9. The argument of the UPSC that the disclosure of marks might derail the examination
system is also not very convincing.   Even if the candidates get to know about their
marks in the preliminary examination, there is no way they can derail the remaining two
tiers or cause obstruction in holding the Mains.  On the other hand, the disclosure of
the marks after the preliminary examination would help candidates to make an honest
assessment   of   their   performance   so   that   they   can   prepare   better   for   the   next
preliminary   examination.     If   these   marks   are   not   disclosed   immediately  after   the
preliminary examination is over and the candidates are made to wait for nearly one
year before accessing these marks, they would loose a whole year in the process and
would not know why they performed the way they did.  Therefore, in our opinion, these
marks should be disclosed.
10. Delhi High Court in LPA No. 817/2010 took the similar view and held “Those
who are knocked out before the interview even and did not have a chance to
compete any further, are definitely entitled to know that they have not been
knocked out arbitrarily to deprive them from even competing any further.” This
is also the practice UPSC follows at the stage of Mains examination as UPSC
uploads the marks sheet of the unsuccessful candidates on its website within
15 days of declaration of results of Mains Examination based on the factual
matrix that qua the unsuccessful candidate the examination process has come
to an end. 11. The synchronised reading of the Supreme Court order, Delhi High Court order
and the decision of Full bench of the CIC quoted above leads us to conclude
that the RTI applicant is to be given the following information
A. The copies of her OMR Sheets for Paper 1 and Paper II in consonance with
Delhi High Court decision in  Writ Petition (Civil)  747/2011 and LPA 817/2010
B. Sectional cut­off in both papers, if any
C. Cut­off for General category in Paper 1 and Paper II separately as per Delhi
High Court order in LPA 313/2007 which holds the field after the decision of the
Supreme   Court   in   Special   Leave   to   Appeal   (Civil)  Nos.   23250/2008   and
32443/2010.
12. The Examination Process qua the RTI Applicant Ms. Shipra Sud has come to
an end once the Mains Examination for 2011 has begun and she has not been
found fit to continue in the 3 stage selection process. We do not agree with the
UPSC that  disclosure  of the  details  of marks  and the  answer  sheet  (OMR
sheet) could potentially stall the entire examination process.  The anticipation
that candidates can, armed with such information, approach higher courts and
obtain   stay   of   the   entire   examination   process   or   get   orders   to   include
themselves is far­fetched.   This would amount to fearing that higher  courts
would not apply their minds when confronted with pleas from candidates and
would mechanically pass orders derailing the examination process or confer
benefits on undeserving candidates.
13. With these directions, the appeal is allowed. The copies of the order may be
given to the parties free of cost.
Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true Copies
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar

Source : http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2012_000135_M_79899.pdf