welcome to Miscellaneous (Law of Precedence, Compliant and Appeal, Freedom of Speech, Transparency in admission/selection) | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
106	CIC/RM/A/2013/000976 (238.13 KB)	06 Dec, 2013	Vijay Prasad Bin vs Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad Submissions made by public authority were heard. PIO submitted that along with the RTI application, they had received three IPOs of Re 1 each and hence the appellant had been requested to provide the correct amount to enable them to take up his RTI. They were willing to provide information to the appellant if he were to file a fresh application along with Rs 10 IPO. However, along-with his first appeal the appellant submitted an IPO of Rs.50/-which was returned by the FAA stating that no payment was required while filing Appeal. The Commission held that the correct procedure should have been for the FAA to direct PIO to provide the information and return the balance amount to the appellant. CIC further held that, in case the appellant wishes to obtain the information, he may apply afresh for the same.
107	CIC/SS/A/2012/001240-SM (207.45 KB)	24 Jan, 2013	N.K. Agarwal V.S. CPIO, Geological Survey of India, 27, JL Nehru Road Kolkata- 700016 Every Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, shall deal with request from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information from the public authority. The Appellant contended that it was common practice in the GSI headquarters not to respond to the information seekers in time and also it was not the CPIO but some nodal officer who normally corresponded with the information seekers- the Commission held that in the GSI headquarters, it is the nodal officer who responded to the information seekers and not the CPIO, although there are a number of them in that office. This is not the right practice. The RTI Act mandates that every public authority should have one or more CPIO and it is the CPIO who has to provide the information to the information seeker. The Commission directed the authorities in the GSI to ensure that, in future, all correspondence with any information seeker is made by only the CPIO and no one else.
108	CIC/DS/A2012/001332 (210.07 KB)	21 Jan, 2013	Narender Kumar V.S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Chennai/Chandigarh(Sh. B.L. Narsimha Rao, CPIO/FAA & Sh. Roop Singh Azad, CPIO- through videoconferencing) Award of Compensation to the applicant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him for obtaining the information- the appellant submitted his RTI application before the CPOIO, United India Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh seeking details in respect of the Appellant’s motor cycle Insurance along with IPO of Rs. 100/-(Rs. 10/- RTI application fees plus Rs. 90/- against cost of dispatch of information by. Regd. Post) in favour of the Accounts Officer- the CPIO asked the Appellant to deposit the requisite fees through IPO in favour of United India Insurance Company Limited, which the appellant did. The Commission held that the Right to Information (Regulation of the Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 and Right to Information Rules, 2012 clearly stated that one of the modes of payment of prescribed fee is Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority. Therefore, the CPIO has erred grievously in not accepting the RTI application of the appellant on the grounds that the IPO was not on the name of the Company and was in fact the name of the Accounts Officer of the Company. The CPIO failed to provide any information to the appellant and the appellant was forced to prefer appeal. Appellant is awarded compensation of Rs. 5000/- for the detriment caused to him on accounts of the conduct of the CPIO.
109	CIC/SM/A/2012/000781& 782 (307.36 KB)	14 Jan, 2013	Wg CDR. (Retd.) SVS Gahlot V.S. CPIO, NTRO, Block III, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067 Act not to apply to certain organisations- National Technical Research Organisation- the appellant had sought to know about not only the action taken on his representations to the authorities about the implementation of some order passed by the NTRO fixing his pay in the past but also to know if the said order had since been implemented or cancelled – the CPIO had responded by stating that no information could be disclosed since the NTRO was include in the second schedule to the RTI Act. The Appellant stated that he had not sought any information relating to any security or intelligence matters, but only sought information regarding his own pay The Commission held that for a retire person such as the Appellant, fixation of his pay which affect his survival prospects hence the information sought is covered under the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act which provides that information relating to human rights violation would have to be disclosed.
110	CIC/DS/A/2012/001898 (211.15 KB)	09 Jan, 2013	R.S. Mehta V.S. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi(Sh. A.K. Mathur, Jr. Officer/CPIO) Award of Compensation to the applicant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him- Section 20(1)- Issue of show cause notice for Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information within stipulated period- the applicant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi to obtain information pertaining to the reasons for non-release of his pensionary benefits. Appellant was provided with partial information primarily relating to the non-availability of the information with the CPIO-the CPIO submitted that the concerned file was not available and it was apprehended that the said file had been wrongly destroyed/misplaced by the then dealing officer in the Law Department for which misdemeanour he had been removed from service The Commission held that it is the responsibility of ever public authority to maintain and preserve that official record and any laxity in this regard cannot be cited as valid reason for denying information to the applicant for detriment suffered by him and further issued the show cause notice to the CPIO as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not having provide the information.
111	CIC/AD/A/2010/001570 (207.25 KB)	21 Dec, 2012	Shri Saidur Rahman vs Ministry of Railways O/o Joint Secretary (G) and CPIOII Railway Board, Rail Bhawan & Northern Railway Headquarter Office Baroda house The applicant filed two RTI applications with the PIOs of Ministry of Railways and Northern Railway HQ, seeking the information regarding alleged wastage of public money by the lawyer on the panel in collusion with the Railway Administration. The Commission directed the PIO to inform the Appellant about the present status of investigation and also recommended that the investigation be completed within the next 4 months and information be provided to the Appellant, including the investigation report and the final decision taken.
112	CIC/AD/A/2011/001501 (424.27 KB)	30 Oct, 2012	Dr. Ishan Ghosh Vs. PIO, Eastern Railway The Applicant seeking information in the form of authenticated document with Final status of a particular railway reservation ticket for 2 passengers. The Commission held that the statutory rules prescribed by any Public Authority do not get overridden by the provisions of the RTI Act and accordingly dismisses the Appeal while upholding the CPIO and AA’s decision. The Appellant is advised to pay the charges laid down for verification of details of PNR and obtain the information which may be provided by the PIO within two weeks of receiving the additional fees from the Appellant.
113	CIC/LS/A/2011/004063/BS/1088 (46.80 KB)	25 Oct, 2012	Mr. Rajesh Prasad vs CPIO & Divisional Engineer (Admin) BSNL The Commission held that it is seen from the reply furnished by the CPIO that the correct mode of remittance of fee has not been advised to the appellant while returning his application. This is not in conformity with the provisions of section 5(3) of the RTI Act which directs the CPIO to render reasonable assistance to persons seeking information.
114	CIC/SM/A/2012/000081, 417, 418 & 419 (208.98 KB)	05 Oct, 2012	Shri Partha Mandal vs CPIO, Union Public Service Commission, (Sangh Lok Seva Ayog), Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi Retention schedule of record by the UPSC where the RTI application have been filed. CIC held that, the records pertaining to those information seekers should be retained till the entire Appellate process is complete even if it would mean exceeding the period prescribed in the retention schedule.
115	CIC/LS/A/2012/001801 (32.54 KB)	04 Oct, 2012	Entesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui vs Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences, New Delhi The Appellant has claimed to be a person below the poverty line and has requested the public authority to send him copies of all volumes of “The Ayurvedic Pharmacopeia in eight volumes and each volume is priced as Rs.900/-, and anybody can buy the volumes from the sale counter. The Commission held that the Pharmacopeia is a priced document. If the Council were to supply it free of cost to all and sundry, it will go bankrupt in no time. Appeal dismissed.
116	CIC/SM/A/2011/002453 (206.26 KB)	20 Sep, 2012	Shri Nitesh Kumar Tripathi vs CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delh The information seeker should normally seek information from any public authority which holds it. The present Appellant often seeks a number of divergent information from one single public authority, a practice which is not conducive to proper disclosure of information.
117	CIC/SM/A/2011/902873, CIC/SM/A/2011/002886, 002917 & CIC/SM/A/2011/902943 (211.42 KB)	03 Sep, 2012	Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Ms. Shailja Thakur, Shri Bhinjaram & Shri Balraj Singh vs CPIO, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi CIC directed the CPIO to verify the examination records to find out if, by chance, the OMR sheets of these four Appellants are still available
118	CIC/LS/A/2011/000408/BS/0296 Penalty (79.13 KB)	12 Jul, 2012	Desh Raj v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ambala Cantt Section 5(4) — the ÇPIO may seek the assistance of any other officer in providing information The Commission held that it is unable to accept the contention of the CPIO/other officers that the remaining records containing the information are missing, especially in view of letter dated 04/09/2010 addressed to the appellant offering inspection of the relevant records. The CPIO/other official(s) are directed to carry out a thorough search to locate the said records and furnish the remaining information/document(s) as requested by the appellant. By not furnishing the complete, correct and timely information the concerned CPIO and the above named deemed PIOS have rendered themselves liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Inaction on the part of holders of information is clearly a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. No reasonable cause has been offered by the deemed PIOs for not furnishing complete information within the stipulated time period, they have rendered themselves liable for imposition of maximum penalty (i.e. 25000/-) in terms of the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission concludes that all four officers are jointly responsible for the delay in providing the information. Accordingly the Commission has decided to divide the total penalty amount of Rs. 25000/- equally between the four officers.
119	CIC/DS/A/2011/001126/RM (77.80 KB)	11 Jul, 2012	Yatinder Babu Sharma vs. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh Section 7(9) — Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority Vide RTI dt 17.7.10, the appellant had sought a)Details of candidates admitted in MCA courses from 2001 to 2010 along with a format containing four columns. b)Details of candidates issued chance memo for MCA courses but werenot given admission for the period 2001-2010 along with a format containing five columns. The appellant was asked to deposit Rs 900 for 450 copies. The Commission held that the CPIO has not denied any information to the appellant. On the contrary, they have asked the appellant to deposit the prescribed fee for photo copying the documents in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Section 7(9) of the RTI Act states that an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. The stand taken by the CPIO as well as by Appellant Authority is upheld.
120	CIC/SM/A/2011/002046 (172.73 KB)	10 Jul, 2012	Dr. A. Arun Thamburaj v Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi Section 7(9) — Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority — The Commission held that firstly the contention is flawed in two ways, (I) the criteria of evaluation would not be disclosed by the knowledge of the marks provided to the answer in each of the questions. Further, the marks weightage allotted to each question is already in the Public Domain; (2) the personal details of the examiners would be severed under section 10 of the RTI Act and hence the evaluation criteria of the individual examiner would certainly not come under the public domain and thus disclosure of the answer sheets written by Appellant would not reveal the methodology/procedure for secret evaluation of answer sheets, prevailing at the UPSC Secondly, held that the judgment discuss the Examination conducted by the Board, but that is because the CBSE is the petitioner in the said case; however, the court has not purposefully excluded the Public Authorities conducting the examination for the employment purposes. In the absence of the conclusive definition of the term 'examination bodies', the same has to be given wider implication. Thirdly, held that the UPSC Mains Examination are limited in numbers and thus would certainly not disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. However, the Commission is not asking the Respondents to preserve the Answer sheets beyond the record retention schedule of the UPSC The right to access information does not extend beyond the period during which the UPSC is expected to retain the answer-books. The Commission directed the respondent to disclose the evaluated answer sheets written by Appellant in Zoology Paper I and Il in the Civil Services Mains Examination 2010 held on November 12, 2010 after duly severing the names and/or signatures of the Examiner or any other third party information.

106

CIC/RM/A/2013/000976
(238.13 KB) pdf icon

06 Dec, 2013

Vijay Prasad Bin vs Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad

Submissions made by public authority were heard. PIO submitted that along with the RTI application, they had received three IPOs of Re 1 each and hence the appellant had been requested to provide the correct amount to enable them to take up his RTI. They were willing to provide information to the appellant if he were to file a fresh application along with Rs 10 IPO.
However, along-with his first appeal the appellant submitted an IPO of Rs.50/-which was returned by the FAA stating that no payment was required while filing Appeal.
The Commission held that the correct procedure should have been for the FAA to direct PIO to provide the information and return the balance amount to the appellant. CIC further held that, in case the appellant wishes to obtain the information, he may apply afresh for the same.

107

CIC/SS/A/2012/001240-SM
(207.45 KB) pdf icon

24 Jan, 2013

N.K. Agarwal V.S. CPIO, Geological Survey of India, 27, JL Nehru Road Kolkata- 700016

Every Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, shall deal with request from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information from the public authority. The Appellant contended that it was common practice in the GSI headquarters not to respond to the information seekers in time and also it was not the CPIO but some nodal officer who normally corresponded with the information seekers-

the Commission held that in the GSI headquarters, it is the nodal officer who responded to the information seekers and not the CPIO, although there are a number of them in that office. This is not the right practice. The RTI Act mandates that every public authority should have one or more CPIO and it is the CPIO who has to provide the information to the information seeker. The Commission directed the authorities in the GSI to ensure that, in future, all correspondence with any information seeker is made by only the CPIO and no one else.

108

CIC/DS/A2012/001332
(210.07 KB) pdf icon

21 Jan, 2013

Narender Kumar V.S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Chennai/Chandigarh(Sh. B.L. Narsimha Rao, CPIO/FAA & Sh. Roop Singh Azad, CPIO- through videoconferencing)

Award of Compensation to the applicant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him for obtaining the information- the appellant submitted his RTI application before the CPOIO, United India Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh seeking details in respect of the Appellant’s motor cycle Insurance along with IPO of Rs. 100/-(Rs. 10/- RTI application fees plus Rs. 90/- against cost of dispatch of information by. Regd. Post) in favour of the Accounts Officer- the CPIO asked the Appellant to deposit the requisite fees through IPO in favour of United India Insurance Company Limited, which the appellant did.

The Commission held that the Right to Information (Regulation of the Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 and Right to Information Rules, 2012 clearly stated that one of the modes of payment of prescribed fee is Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority. Therefore, the CPIO has erred grievously in not accepting the RTI application of the appellant on the grounds that the IPO was not on the name of the Company and was in fact the name of the Accounts Officer of the Company. The CPIO failed to provide any information to the appellant and the appellant was forced to prefer appeal. Appellant is awarded compensation of Rs. 5000/- for the detriment caused to him on accounts of the conduct of the CPIO.

109

CIC/SM/A/2012/000781& 782
(307.36 KB) pdf icon

14 Jan, 2013

Wg CDR. (Retd.) SVS Gahlot V.S. CPIO, NTRO, Block III, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067

Act not to apply to certain organisations- National Technical Research Organisation- the appellant had sought to know about not only the action taken on his representations to the authorities about the implementation of some order passed by the NTRO fixing his pay in the past but also to know if the said order had since been implemented or cancelled – the CPIO had responded by stating that no information could be disclosed since the NTRO was include in the second schedule to the RTI Act. The Appellant stated that he had not sought any information relating to any security or intelligence matters, but only sought information regarding his own pay

The Commission held that for a retire person such as the Appellant, fixation of his pay which affect his survival prospects hence the information sought is covered under the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act which provides that information relating to human rights violation would have to be disclosed.

110

CIC/DS/A/2012/001898
(211.15 KB) pdf icon

09 Jan, 2013

R.S. Mehta V.S. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi(Sh. A.K. Mathur, Jr. Officer/CPIO)

Award of Compensation to the applicant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him- Section 20(1)- Issue of show cause notice for Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information within stipulated period- the applicant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi to obtain information pertaining to the reasons for non-release of his pensionary benefits. Appellant was provided with partial information primarily relating to the non-availability of the information with the CPIO-the CPIO submitted that the concerned file was not available and it was apprehended that the said file had been wrongly destroyed/misplaced by the then dealing officer in the Law Department for which misdemeanour he had been removed from service

The Commission held that it is the responsibility of ever public authority to maintain and preserve that official record and any laxity in this regard cannot be cited as valid reason for denying information to the applicant for detriment suffered by him and further issued the show cause notice to the CPIO as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not having provide the information.

111

CIC/AD/A/2010/001570
(207.25 KB) pdf icon

21 Dec, 2012

Shri Saidur Rahman vs Ministry of Railways O/o Joint Secretary (G) and CPIOII Railway Board, Rail Bhawan & Northern Railway Headquarter Office Baroda house

The applicant filed two RTI applications with the PIOs of Ministry of Railways and Northern Railway HQ, seeking the information regarding alleged wastage of public money by the lawyer on the panel in collusion with the Railway Administration. The Commission directed the PIO to inform the Appellant about the present status of investigation and also recommended that the investigation be completed within the next 4 months and information be provided to the Appellant, including the investigation report and the final decision taken.

112

CIC/AD/A/2011/001501
(424.27 KB) pdf icon

30 Oct, 2012

Dr. Ishan Ghosh Vs. PIO, Eastern Railway

The Applicant seeking information in the form of authenticated document with Final status of a particular railway reservation ticket for 2 passengers.
The Commission held that the statutory rules prescribed by any Public Authority do not get overridden by the provisions of the RTI Act and accordingly dismisses the Appeal while upholding the CPIO and AA’s decision. The Appellant is advised to pay the charges laid down for verification of details of PNR and obtain the information which may be provided by the PIO within two weeks of receiving the additional fees from the Appellant.

113

CIC/LS/A/2011/004063/BS/1088
(46.80 KB) pdf icon

25 Oct, 2012

Mr. Rajesh Prasad vs CPIO & Divisional Engineer (Admin) BSNL

The Commission held that it is seen from the reply furnished by the CPIO that the correct mode of remittance of fee has not been advised to the appellant while returning his application. This is not in conformity with the provisions of section 5(3) of the RTI Act which directs the CPIO to render reasonable assistance to persons seeking information.

114

CIC/SM/A/2012/000081, 417, 418 & 419
(208.98 KB) pdf icon

05 Oct, 2012

Shri Partha Mandal vs CPIO, Union Public Service Commission, (Sangh Lok Seva Ayog), Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi

Retention schedule of record by the UPSC where the RTI application have been filed. CIC held that, the records pertaining to those information seekers should be retained till the entire Appellate process is complete even if it would mean exceeding the period prescribed in the retention schedule.

115

CIC/LS/A/2012/001801
(32.54 KB) pdf icon

04 Oct, 2012

Entesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui vs Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences, New Delhi

The Appellant has claimed to be a person below the poverty line and has requested the public authority to send him copies of all volumes of “The Ayurvedic Pharmacopeia in eight volumes and each volume is priced as Rs.900/-, and anybody can buy the volumes from the sale counter. The Commission held that the Pharmacopeia is a priced document. If the Council were to supply it free of cost to all and sundry, it will go bankrupt in no time. Appeal dismissed.

116

CIC/SM/A/2011/002453
(206.26 KB) pdf icon

20 Sep, 2012

Shri Nitesh Kumar Tripathi vs CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delh

The information seeker should normally seek information from any public authority which holds it. The present Appellant often seeks a number of divergent information from one single public authority, a practice which is not conducive to proper disclosure of information.

117

CIC/SM/A/2011/902873, CIC/SM/A/2011/002886, 002917 & CIC/SM/A/2011/902943
(211.42 KB) pdf icon

03 Sep, 2012

Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Ms. Shailja Thakur, Shri Bhinjaram & Shri Balraj Singh vs CPIO, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi

CIC directed the CPIO to verify the examination records to find out if, by chance, the OMR sheets of these four Appellants are still available

118

CIC/LS/A/2011/000408/BS/0296 Penalty
(79.13 KB) pdf icon

12 Jul, 2012

Desh Raj v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ambala Cantt

Section 5(4) — the ÇPIO may seek the assistance of any other officer in providing information
The Commission held that it is unable to accept the contention of the CPIO/other officers that the remaining records containing the information are missing, especially in view of letter dated 04/09/2010 addressed to the appellant offering inspection of the relevant records. The CPIO/other official(s) are directed to carry out a thorough search to locate the said records and furnish the remaining information/document(s) as requested by the appellant. By not furnishing the complete, correct and timely information the concerned CPIO and the above named deemed PIOS have rendered themselves liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Inaction on the part of holders of information is clearly a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. No reasonable cause has been offered by the deemed PIOs for not furnishing complete information within the stipulated time period, they have rendered themselves liable for imposition of maximum penalty (i.e. 25000/-) in terms of the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission concludes that all four officers are jointly responsible for the delay in providing the information. Accordingly the Commission has decided to divide the total penalty amount of Rs. 25000/- equally between the four officers.

119

CIC/DS/A/2011/001126/RM
(77.80 KB) pdf icon

11 Jul, 2012

Yatinder Babu Sharma vs. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh

Section 7(9) — Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority
Vide RTI dt 17.7.10, the appellant had sought a)Details of candidates admitted in MCA courses from 2001 to 2010 along with a format containing four columns. b)Details of candidates issued chance memo for MCA courses but werenot given admission for the period 2001-2010 along with a format
containing five columns. The appellant was asked to deposit Rs 900 for 450 copies.

The Commission held that the CPIO has not denied any information to the appellant. On the contrary, they have asked the appellant to deposit the prescribed fee for photo copying the documents in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Section 7(9) of the RTI Act states that an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. The stand taken by the CPIO as well as by Appellant Authority is upheld.

120

CIC/SM/A/2011/002046
(172.73 KB) pdf icon

10 Jul, 2012

Dr. A. Arun Thamburaj v Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi

Section 7(9) — Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority —
The Commission held that firstly the contention is flawed in two ways, (I) the criteria of evaluation would not be disclosed by the knowledge of the marks provided to the answer in each of the questions. Further, the marks weightage allotted to each question is already in the Public Domain; (2) the personal details of the examiners would be severed under section 10 of the RTI Act and hence the evaluation criteria of the individual examiner would certainly not come under the public domain and thus disclosure of the answer sheets written by Appellant would not reveal the methodology/procedure for secret evaluation of answer sheets, prevailing at the UPSC Secondly, held that the judgment discuss the Examination conducted by the Board, but that is because the CBSE is the petitioner in the said case; however, the court has not purposefully excluded the Public Authorities conducting the examination for the employment purposes. In the absence of the conclusive definition of the term 'examination bodies', the same has to be given wider implication. Thirdly, held that the UPSC Mains Examination are limited in numbers and thus would certainly not disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. However, the Commission is not asking the Respondents to preserve the Answer sheets beyond the record retention schedule of the UPSC The right to access information does not extend beyond the period during which the UPSC is expected to retain the answer-books. The Commission directed the respondent to disclose the evaluated answer sheets written by Appellant in Zoology Paper I and Il in the Civil Services Mains Examination 2010 held on November 12, 2010 after duly severing the names and/or signatures of the Examiner or any other third party information.