Section 8(1)(d) UPSC to declare cut off marks
High Court of Delhi at New-Delhi - LPA
No. 313 of 2007 and CM Appl. No. 6468/2007,
Decided on 03-09-2008 Union Public Service
Commission-- Appellant Vs. Shiv Shambhu
and others Respondents. CORAM : Hon. C.J.
Dr. S. Murlidhar
1. In this case the respondent made an application
to the UPSC seeking information relating to cut
off marks list for optional subjects and general
studies and also details of the marks obtained by
the candidates in the preliminary examination.
The CPIO of the UPSC declined to provide the
information sought on the ground that the said
information forms part of the commissions
crucial secretes and intellectual property under
section 8(1)(d) of the R.T.I.Act.
2. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner
preferred appeal which was rejected on the same
ground of secrecy and confidentiality of the Civil
Services Examination. Feeling aggrieved by this
order the petitioner preferred writ petition before
the Single Judge of the High Court. After
considering the merits of the arguments of rival
parties, the Single Judge declined to interfere
with the directions given by CIC except the
direction relating to the cut off marks. Those
directions were modified. Not satisfied with the
order of the Single Judge, the petitioner preferred
an appeal before the Division Bench. After
hearing both sides, the Division Bench observed
that a perusal of the documents submitted by the
UPSC, are not of such a nature that can be
characterized as secret , or of a type the disclosure
of which would not be in public interest. As
regards scaling methodology as already been
pointed out by the learned Single Judge, this is no
different from what already stand disclosed by
the UPSC to the Supreme Court in its counter
affidavit filed in SLPand is therefore in the public
domain. As regards the apprehension expressed
by the UPSC that the scaling formulation could
be deciphered first once the cut off marks and
Center for Right to Information, YASHADA
Compilation of the judgments of the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.
14
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. The High Court, therefore, did not find any
merit in the appeal and affirmed the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge. The
appeal and application were dismissed
accordingly.