Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 6799
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
NIRMAL SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
Union Public Service Commission – Respondent
CIC/UPSCM/A/2023/648516
Information must be disclosed under RTI if available, regardless of candidature cancellation, emphasizing transparency.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - The Commission directed the CPIO to re-examine the RTI application regarding the marks obtained by the Appellant and provide a revised reply if available, or justify the unavailability with relevant rules. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Transparency and Disclosure - The principle that information must be disclosed if it is available in any form unless exempted from disclosure is emphasized, referencing previous verdicts. (Paras 1-2)
(C) Candidature Cancellation - The Appellant challenged the withholding of marks and the cancellation of his candidature due to discrepancies in his EWS certificate. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant sought information regarding the verification of his EWS certificate and the withholding of his exam marks after his candidature was cancelled. The CPIO provided incomplete information, leading to the appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Commission directed a re-examination of the request for marks and required justification for any unavailability.
Issues: The main issues included the right to access marks and the justification for the cancellation of candidature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the CPIO must provide information if it exists and cannot withhold it based on the cancellation of candidature without a valid reason.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) I want to know whether the revised EWS certificate furnished by the candidates at the time of interview has been verified by the UPSC or not?
(ii) In the light of the new certificate the candidate fulfills all the conditions of the reservation benefits then why the marks of the Preliminary exam, Mains examination and interview stage has been withheld?
It The CIC in two separate Verdict viz. Mr. S Papa Rao vs Union Public Service Commission on 7 February, 2011 and Mr. Dhiraj Jayant vs State Bank Of India on 22 October, 2010 held that While technically the decision of the UPSC and the SBI respectively not to declare his marks/results in the background of the cancellation of his candidature might be correct, if they continue to hold the marks awarded against the role number assigned to this particular individual, there is no ground on which they can withhold that information. There is no provision in the Right to Information (RTI) Act which entitles the CPIO to deny information merely on the ground that the competent authority had decided not to declare the results. The simple rule is that if the information is available in any form, it must be given unless otherwise exempted from disclosure.
Hence, in the light of the above mentioned verdict
(iii) I want to know the marks obtained by me in the Preliminary examination 2022, the marks obtained by me in all the papers of the Mains examination 2022 and marks awarded to me at the time of Personality test by the interview board.
(iv) Finally, on what basis my candidature has been cancelled since I have already submitted the revised EWS certificate at the time of interview which was also verified by the UPSC officials at the time of interview?
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
(i) Point Nos. 1, 2 & 4:- In this regard, a copy of Rule 13 of Rules of CSE-2022 related to uploading of supporting documents with DAF-I and failing which lead cancellation of candidature, is enclosed.
(ii) Point No.3:- As per the practice of the Commission, the marks sheet of those candidates whose candidature has been cancelled is not issued.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 30.08.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Kiran Arora, US and CPIO attended the hearing in Person.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought certain queries through RTI Application to obtain his marks and clarity on the basis for the cancellation of his candidature. He explained the cancellation of his candidature for the UPSC Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2022 due to alleged discrepancies in his EWS (Economically Weaker Section) certificate, despite submitting a corrected certificate during the personality test stage. This issue was further compounded when the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) refused to disclose his marks for the Preliminary, Mains, and Personality Test stages. He asserts that the information must be disclosed if available in any form.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise suitable reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been furnished to the Appellant stating that the marks sheet of those candidates whose candidature has been cancelled is not issued as they are not maintained by UPSC. When queried by the Commission regarding any Rule position observing which such record is not maintained, the Respondent was unable to produce/explain the same.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances
