An failed UPSC applicant’s request for publication of his answer sheets for each of the seven main test questions, together with their model solutions, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was denied by the Delhi High Court.
The applicant’s appeal against a decision by a single judge denying the same request was dismissed by a bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad, who also ruled that there was no public interest in the disclosure of the answer sheets in the particular case.
“The question of whether or not the Civil Services (Mains) Examination answer sheets may be provided to a failed applicant is no longer res integra since the highest court has crystallised the issue…Civil Services Examination answer sheets may only be made public if doing so is in the public interest. No public interest has been shown in this instance as to why the answer sheets should be given to the appellant here, the court said in a recent judgement.
“This court does not see any justification for interfering with the learned single judge’s ruling. The court’s opinion was that the appeal should be rejected together with any pending petitions.
The appellant, a recent engineering graduate, took the 2020 Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination and passed it. She subsequently took the Mains Examination but failed.
He subsequently submitted an RTI request to obtain his answer sheets and a copy of the model answers, but the authorities, including the solitary judge, rejected the request.
The appellant argued before the court that there was no justification for denying him access to his own answer sheets and the marks he received on the Civil Services Examination.
In its ruling, the court observed that the Supreme Court had addressed the topic in a case that was before it and took into account the difficulties in allowing applicants to see graded answer booklets.
The court noted that, in accordance with the top court judgement, requests for information pertaining to Civil Services Exam marks cannot be ordered to be automatically provided.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s statement that failure to value the review process would undermine trust and integrity in the system, especially via litigation, and put coaching institutions at risk of obtaining copies.
It also warned that the quality of evaluation standards would decline.
Leave a Reply