Marks scored by the appellant in exam for Sub-inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFs & Assistant Sub-inspector in CISF - Respondent: Result of candidate was withheld - CIC: No exemption clause invoked; SCN issued to PIO for arbitrary denial; Provide information
13 Oct, 2025
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
“The information sought, is regarding the Sub-inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub-inspector in CISF Examination 2018 paper 1&2 held on 13-03-2019 & 27- 09-2019 and PET/PST held on-14-10-2019. Following are the required set of information:
1) Marks scored by myself in paper 1 & 2. NAME-RAJESH KUMAR ROLL NO 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.
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.
01056558 held on 13-03-2019 & 27-09-2019.
2) Photocopy of OMR Sheet Paper 1&2
3) PET/PST- RESULT
4) Final Cut off marks in SC category for Sub-Inspector Delhi Police Departmental candidates.
5) How many Sub-Inspector vacancies notified for Delhi Police departmental candidates under SC -category.
6) How many Sub-Inspector vacancies filled under SC Category for Delhi Police departmental candidates.
7) How many Sub-Inspector vacancies were left vacant in SC category under Delhi Police departmental exam in the said examination.”
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.01.2024.
3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 31.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
“Reply: Point No.1, 2 to 7-Marks and PET/PST result, were uploaded on the Commission website. You should have seen your complete details in the stipulated time period.
The FAA vide order dated 20.03.2024 stated that:
“CPIO may examine the request of the applicant with regard to the case of Sh. Vikram Singh Shekhawat in whose case it has been stated that the information has been provided. The CPIO may based on such examination furnish an appropriate reply to the applicant.”
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, A K Roy, CPIO attended the hearing in person.
6. The parties were heard at length and the respondent submitted upon a query from the Commission that it was not declared by the Appellant in his RTI Application that his result was withheld, which is why such a reply was provided to him. Further, on the question of the CPIO’s apprehension in parting with the information at this stage, following submissions of the CPIO render clarity to the issue for determination:
“2. In this context, it is submitted that the applicant (Rajesh Kumar) is among 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. 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. petitioners who filed OA No. 1434/2018 before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, seeking age relaxation available to Govt. Civilian Employees. The petitioners of the ibid OA (including the applicant herein) were provisionally allowed to appear in Paper-I. Subsequently, CAT, PB, New Delhi vide its interim Order dated 23.07.2019 (copy enclosed) in OA No. 1434/2018 directed to permit the applicants to participate in PST and PET (which is subsequent stage to Paper-I) provisionally and in case they are qualified as per the norms applicable to all the candidates for the said test, they may be further permitted to appear in the subsequent stages of the examination provisionally. However, the result of the applicants may be kept in a sealed cover and shall not be declared without permission of the Tribunal.
3. In compliance of interim directions of Hon'ble Tribunal, the result of Paper-I, PET/PST and Paper-II of the petitioners of the ibid OA (including the applicant herein) were kept withheld. The same has been mentioned in the result write-up(s) dated 25.05.2019 for Paper-I stage, dated 09.09.2019 for PET/PST stage and dated 03.02.2020 for Paper-II stage.
5. The ibid OA was disposed of by Hon'ble CAT, PB, New Delhi vide its final order dated 21.09.2023 (copy enclosed) wherein the relief was confined to Petitioner no. 19 (Vikram Singh Shekhawat) out of 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. 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. petitioners of the ibid OA (including the applicant herein). Excerpts of para 5.9 of the ibid Order dated 21.09.2023 are reproduced here for reference –
‘5.9...... In the present OA, the relief is confined to Applicant No. 19 and the relief in respect of other applicants has become infructuous in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the applicants.’
6. It is worthful to mention that subsequent to interim Order dated 23.07.2019 in OA No. 1434/2018, no directions for declaration of result of the applicant (Rajesh Kumar) either in the final Order dated 21.09.2023 or any interim order during proceedings of the ibid OA were given by the Hon'ble Tribunal.”
The Appellant’s primary argument was that since information related to one of the candidates has been provided, he is also entitled to access the information related to him now since the OA stands disposed of.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the averred OA and the relief sought for by the other applicants was clearly decided to have become infructuous and the interim order that the CPIO is relying upon to withhold the information of the candidates in a sealed cover was no longer stipulated to be in operation whilst passing the final order. Infact the averred final order stipulates that all pending MA(s) are also disposed of with another connected OA being described as infructuous and this order significantly predates the date of filing of the RTI Application. Moreover, it is not even the case that the CPIO invoked any exemption of Section 8 of the RTI Act to deny the information at the original instance, rather provided an arbitrary response seemingly intimidating the applicant for not checking his results when it was uploaded. Additionally, there is no material placed on record by the CPIO to even show that the averred FAA’s order (which as a matter of fact was leaning in favor of the Appellant) was complied with till date.
The above observations suggest that prima-facie the information was denied to the Appellant rather deliberately and arbitrarily by the CPIO and calls for a proper written explanation from the CPIO. The CPIO is now directed to send a proper written submission to show cause as to why action should not be initiated in the matter under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act for failing to provide a proper reply to the RTI Application at the original instance as the queries of different nature i.e distinct from the mere marks and result of the Appellant were left unattended by providing an unwarranted cumulative reply, that too which was not in complaince with any enabling provision of the RTI Act or as per the prescribed exemptions of the RTI Act. Further, the CPIO is also required to explain the prima-facie non complaince of the FAA’s order evinced from the facts on record. The written submissions of the CPIO on the said counts of omissions shall be sent to the Commission within 15 days of the receipt of this order.
8. Further, the CPIO is directed to now provide a revised and specific point-wise reply to the RTI Application incorporating the available information regarding the Appellant’s result and OMR sheet as sought for at points 1-3; and for points 4-7, if the information is maintained and is available, the same shall be provided, otherwise, unavailability of the same shall be categorically spelt out against the relevant point. The said revised reply of the CPIO shall be provided to the Appellant, free of cost, within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Information Commissioner
Citation: Rajesh Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/SSCOM/A/2024/633982; Date of Decision: 10.09.2025