Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
Section 9 in The Right To Information Act, 2005
The Right To Information Act, 2005
Union Public Service Commission vs Shiv Shambhu on 3 September, 2008

User Queries
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ajay Kumar Mishra vs Union Public Service Commission on 27 May, 2011




OA 816/2011

New Delhi this the 27th day of May, 2011

Honble Mr. Justice V.K.Bali, Chairman
Honble Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A)

1.	Ajay Kumar Mishra,
	S/o Shri R.S.Mishra,
	C/o Rajeev Ranjan, Block E, House No. 72,
	3rd Floor, Gandhi Vihar, 
	Near Mukherjee Nagar, 
New Delhi.

2.	Ashok Kumar,
S/o Late Bhisham Singh,
C/o Raj Kumar R/o Shakti Nagar, 
Near Lions School, Chandausi, 
District Moradabad, UP-202412

3.	Amresh Kumar,
	S/o Shri Suraj Man Sharma,				
	R/o, J-362, 2nd Floor, New Rajendra Nagar,
	New Delhi.

4.	Rajesh Kumar Tiwari,
	S/o Shri M.N.Tiwari,
	R/o House No. 1365, Top Floor,
	Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi.

5.	Yogesh Bhaskar,
	S/o J.P. Bhaskar,
	R/o 9/EK 36, Vasundhara,
	Ghaziabad, UP.

6.	Varun Kumar,
	S/o Sri Surendra Thakur,
	H. No. 132, Bhai Parmanand Colony,

7.	Vikash Anand,
	S/o Binay Kumar,
	R/o Dangalpura, Hatia Road,
	Dumka, Jharkhand-814101

8.	Rajiv Tiwari,
S/o Sri M.P.Tiwari,
12-A, Kunj Vihar, Garh Road,
Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.

9.	Dheeraj Kumar Srivatava,
	S/o Shiv Shankar Lal Srivastava,
	R/o Jal Sansthan, Khushi Bagh,
	Allahabad, U.P.    

10.	Pawan Kumar Thakur,
	S/o Sri Tulsi Thakur,
	Siwibari, Mundadura, Panchayat Bhawan,
	Kumardubhi, Dhandad-828203,

11.	Ajit Kumar,
	S/o Dinanath Singh,
	VPO- Pipra, Via-Tukkipur,
	Tehsil: Maharajgang, Siwan, Bihar.

12.	Sanjay Kumar Chauhan,
	S/o Ajab Singh Chauhan,
	D-266, Subhash Nagar, Roorkee,
District-Hardwar, Utarakhand.

13.	Jyoti Singh,
	D/o J.P.N. Singh,
	Room No. 304, Intentional Student House for
	Women, Near Mukherjee Nagar,

14.	Lakshmi Kant Upadhyay,
	S/o Shri Bhagwan Upadhyay,
	R/o Village-Rashidpur Kaneta,
Post: Donker, Distt. Firozabad (UP).

15.	Raja Ram Tripathi,
	S/o Hajari Lal,
	R/o A-492, Nehru Vihar, Delhi-110054.

16.	Jitendra Kumar Pandey,
	S/o Shri S.D. Pandey,
	283,  Netaji Chauraha Allahpur,
	Allahabad, UP.

17.	Krishna Kumar Mishra,
	S/o Shri Ramsurat Mishra,
	Lecturer Hindi,
	Government Inter College, Rajakhet,
	District- Tehri Garhwal,

18.	Hemant Kumar Saraswat
	S/o Shri B.P. Sraraswat,
	A-13 A, Vijay Nagar, Single Story,

19.	Anil Kumar Tripathi,
	S/o Shri Shiva Kumar Tripathi,
	R/o D-222-23, Nehru Vihar,

20.	Durgesh Kumar Tripathi,
S/o Shri Rasik Mohan Tripathi,
543, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.	

21.	Angesh Kumar
	S/o Mr. Umesh Sharma,
	R/o B-39, 2nd Floor, Nehru VIhar,
Timarpur,	New Delhi.                      		  Applicants

(By Advocate Shri Murari Kumar for Shri Raja Ram Tripathi )


1.	Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069.

2.	Union of India,
Through Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pension,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Through Secretary, New Delhi.		   Respondents

(By Advocate Shri Naresh Kaushik )


Mr. L.K.Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) :

Ajay Kumar Misra and 20 others appeared for the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2010 and are aggrieved that they have failed to qualify for the preliminary examination because, according to them, serious errors were committed in the evaluation of answer sheets of the preliminary examination. They are seeking directions to the Respondent, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), to produce all the record relating to the CSE 2010, including the answer sheets of the Applicants, and verify the irregularities committed by the Respondent in the evaluation of answer books for all the answers of Civil Services Preliminary Examination, 2010 and direct the Respondent to prepare model answers for the Civil Services Preliminary Examination, 2010 and re-examine and re-evaluate the answer books of all the candidates. An alternate prayer has been made to set aside the CSE 2010 on the basis of irregularities found in the preliminary examination.

2. The facts, in nuce, indicate that the 21 Applicants before us appeared in the Civil Services Examination (CSE), 2010. The Applicants did not succeed in the preliminary examination of the CSE, 2010. The Applicants sought information regarding their marks declared in the preliminary examination after scaling, raw marks awarded to them in the examination as well as model answers for the question papers which were multiple choice type. However, the first Respondent, UPSC, did not give them the information asked for. Some of the Applicants also made a representation to the UPSC to re-check their answer sheets. The Respondent, UPSC, informed them by letter dated 21.09.2010 that their answer sheets had been re-checked and it had been verified that there was no mistake of any kind.

3. With regard to the CSE, 2006 (Preliminary Examination) some candidates had approached the Central Information Commission (CIC), which gave certain directions for disclosure of marks et cetera to the UPSC. The UPSC filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 17583 of 2006, UPSC V. Central Information Commission, which was decided on 17.04.2007. LPA No. 313/2007, UPSC V. Shiv Shambu reported in 2008 IX AD (Delhi) 289, was filed against the judgement of the learned single Judge. The following directions issued by the CIC in regard to the candidates of CSE 2006 were upheld:

i) The UPSC shall, within two weeks from the date of this order, disclose the marks assigned to each of the applicants for the Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2006 in General Studies and in Option Papers; and

ii) The UPSC, within two weeks from the date of this order, shall also disclose the cut-off marks fixed in respect of the General Studies paper and in respect of each of the Option Papers and if no such cut-off marks are there, it shall disclose the subject-wise marks assigned to short-listed candidates; and

iii) The UPSC shall examine and consider under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act the disclosure of the scaling system as it involves larger public interest in providing a level playing field for all aspirants and shall place the matter before the Competent Authority within one month from the date of this order. This will also cover the issue of disclosure of model answers, which we recommend should in any case be made public from time to time. In doing so, it shall duly take into account the provisions of Section 9 of the RTI Act. The SLP filed against the judgement in Shiv Shambu (supra) was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 18.11.2010 with the observation that the UPSC had completely changed the pattern of its examination and that the next examination for the year 2011 would be held according to the changed format. In view of the above development, the Honourable Supreme Court held, there was no need for any adjudication by the Court in that matter.

4. Some of the Applicants in this OA approached the Honourable Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6931/2010 seeking the following relief:

The three prayers in this writ petition are:

issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records of the case and peruse the same.

issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents to disclose the marks obtained by the Petitioners in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination 2010.

) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents to disclose the cut-off marks obtained by the selected candidates in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination 2010. The WP (C) was decided on 08.10.2010, in which it was noted that the Honourable Supreme Court had stayed the judgement of the learned Division Bench in Shiv Shambu (supra) by an order dated 12.12.2008. It was also noted that two of the issues decided by the Delhi High Court in Shiv Shambu (supra) involved the disclosure of marks awarded to each of the candidates in the preliminary examination of 2006, the cut-off marks and the scaling system. Observing that two of the issues in the WP (C) 6931/2010 were the same as in Shiv Shambu (supra), the decision in which was pending before the Supreme Court, which had stayed the judgement of the Division Bench, the High Court declined to consider the matter and dismissed the Writ Petition. The Honourable Delhi High Court observed as follows in the judgement dated 08.10.2010 in WP (C) No. 6931/2010:

4. This Court finds that two of the issues decided by this Court in Union Public Service Commission v. Shiv Shambu involved the disclosure of marks awarded to each of the applicants in the Prelims for the year 2006, the cut-off 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. However, the SLP against Shiv Shambu (supra) was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 18.11.2010, as already mentioned above. The Respondent, UPSC, has filed I.A. No. 1 in petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 32443/2010 against the judgement dated 08.10.2010 in WP (C), in which notices been issued by order dated 31.03.2011.

5. The upshot of the above is that the matter is still under consideration of the Honourable Supreme Court. It was for this reason that the Honourable Delhi High Court had declined to consider the matter in WP (C) No. 6931/2010, as quoted in the preceding paragraph.

6. As far as the issues about re-evaluation of answer sheets is concerned, this Tribunal has held in OA 133/2007, Ravi Jindal Vs. Union Public Service Commission, OA 1168/2007, Kapil Malik Vs. UPSC, OA 1389/2007, Dr. Bikram Singh Gill Vs. UPSC and OA 2570/2008, Shri Sandeep Kumar Vs. UPSC that re-evaluation cannot be permitted because there is no rule to that effect. The Tribunals orders have relied on the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others, (2004) 6 SCC 714 in which the Honourable Court, inter alia, observed as follows:

In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.

7. Since the Honourable Supreme Court is seized of the matter, which has been raised in this OA, we shall not entertain this OA. The OA is dismissed. No costs.

( L.K.Joshi)						                         ( V.K.Bali)
Vice Chairman (A)					                Chairman