UPSC: Marks of candidates whose candidature has been cancelled have not been uploaded on website - CIC: Since the Appellant has sought for his own marks the reason cited by the CPIO for denying the same is not in compliance with the provisions of RTI Act
2 Sep, 2023Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.10.20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. seeking the following information:-
“With due respect it is stated that I Amit Turan S/o Jaipal had applied for post of CAPF (ASSISTANT COMMANDANTS) 2019. In respect of above examination, kindly provide a verified copy of the following information:-
- Marks secured by me in Written Exam.
- Marks secured by me in PT / Interview.
Kindly find the below mentioned details for your perusal as:- Name- AMIT TURAN Roll no- 0826939”
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 10.10.20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. stating as under:-
I am to refer to your RTI application registration number UPSCM/R/E/ 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. /04269 dated 03.10.20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. wherein you have requested to provide the information in respect of CARF (ACs) Examinations 2019.
In this regard you are informed that Marks of candidates whose candidature has been cancelled have not been provided/ uploaded on the Commission’s website.
Since, your candidature for the above said exam has been cancelled, the information sought cannot be provided.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.10.20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. . FAA’s order, dated 27.10.20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. is as under:-
“I have gone through the contents of the appeal, reply furnished by the CPIO, UPSC to the Appellant, the facts and comments offered by the officers concerned of the UPSC on the appeal and the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
I note that the reply given by the CPIO, UPSC is appropriate, to the extant available with him. No direction is required to the CPIO.
With the above observations/directions, I dispose of the appeal.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with
the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Pradeep Toppo, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and stated that as per relevant UPSC policy, the candidates whose candidature is cancelled, their marks are not uploaded on the website therefore the same has not been provided to the Appellant. Upon being questioned as to what is the impediment to the disclosure of the marks of the Appellant under the RTI Act, the CPIO expressed his inability to explain on this aspect and reiterated that he has assumed the charge only recently and as per his understanding, the policy followed by UPSC is stated in the CPIO’s reply.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the denial of the information by the CPIO appears to be without any footing permissible under the RTI Act. In other words, the CPIO has failed to invoke any exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act and has also not justified the denial of the information during the hearing as required under Section 19(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. of the RTI Act, which provides as under:
“(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.”
Similarly, Section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the RTI Act is squarely applicable in the instant case which provides as under:
22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. . Act to have overriding effect.—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”
Since the Appellant has sought for his own marks and has applied for the same under the RTI Act, the reason cited by the CPIO for denying the same is not in compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, the CPIO is now directed to provide the available information as sought for in the RTI Application to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Amit Turan v. Union Public Service Commission, CIC/UPSCM/A/20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. /658298; 07/08/2023