Marks scored in examination when result is withheld

The appellant sought information about the marks scored by him in the examination conducted for the Sub-inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFs and Assistant Sub-inspector in CISF Examination. The information was denied and on query by the CIC, the respondent submitted 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. The appellant argued 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. The appellant submitted that the averred OA infructuous and the interim order that the PIO 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. 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. Additionally, the PIO has not complied with the averred FAA’s order which was leaning in favor of the Appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to submit a written explanation to show cause as to why action should not be initiated in the matter under Section 20(1) 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. Further, the PIO was also directed to explain the prima-facie non-compliance of the FAA’s order within 15 days. The PIO was directed to provide a revised reply to the RTI Application incorporating the available information regarding the Appellant’s result and OMR sheet as sought for. 

Comments

In many instances, it has been pointed out that the marks scored by an individual should be provided to him/her unless any of the exemption sections of the RTI Act, 2005 can be invoked to deny the information. 

Citation: Rajesh Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission, Second Appeal No. CIC/SSCOM/A/2024/633982; Date of Decision: 10.09.2025

Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com