Question { SSC, 652705 }
When will the final result of SSC Combined graduate level
main exam 2006 publish?
What is the cut off mark for the General category in the
Combined graduate level main exam 2005?
Answer
Dear kapil,
i am pasting the link as it is given:-
PDF] CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONFile Format: PDF/Adobe
Acrobat - View as HTML
declaration of the final result of Combined Graduate Level
(Main). Examination, 2005. No merit list is maintained for
not selected candidates. There is no ...
the above is exactly written on the page....steps to find---
step-1)type final result of combined graduate level main
2005
step-2)go to the second page & it is given on the top
the headline is given as CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
/CIC-Orders/WB-22012009-02.pdf
Any way i am pasting the whole report........but pls,
DISCUSS ABOUT THE PAPER YOU HAVE GIVEN IN CGLM 2008 TILL
NOW & BEST OF LUCK FOR FORTHCOMING PAPERS ON 28th & 1st
MARCH.
THE REPORT.......................
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal
No.CIC/WB/A/2007/01207 dated 11.10.2007 Right to
Information Act 2005 – Section 19Appellant - Shri Ullas
Jain Respondent -Staff Selection Board, (SSC) Dep’t. of
Personnel & Training (DoPT) Facts: By an application of
9.4.07 Shri Ullas Jain of Jaipur applied to the CPIO, SSC
seeking the following information: “(a) I am a candidate of
SSC Graduate Level (Main) Exam 2005. My Roll No is 1702513.
Please furnish the marks obtained by me in the following
papers of Scheme ‘A’ of above exam. (i) General studies.
(ii) English. (iii)Arithmetic. (iv) Language comprehension.
(v) Communication skill and writing ability. (b) Also
furnish the merit position number obtained by me in the
written part of scheme –A of SSC graduate level (Main)Exam
2005. (c) Also state the fees required to be paid for
obtaining photocopies of evaluated answer sheets of all
five papers of above exam.’ To this he received a response
on 26.4.07, as follows:“I am directed to refer to your
letter dated 9.4.2007 requesting information under RTI Act
relating to Graduate Level (Main) Examination, 2005 and to
say there is no provision for providing photocopies of all
used answer sheet in the combined graduate Level (Main)
Examination, 2005. As regards your request for providing
marks, the final result of the Combined Graduate Level
(Main) Examination 2005 is yet to be declared by the
Commission. In view of this, Commission is not in a
position to provide the requisite information.” 1
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Page 2
Aggrieved by this decision, Shri Jain moved a first appeal
before the First Appellate Authority on 7.5.07 upon which
he received an order from Shri L. Vishwanathan, Director
dated 23.5.07 as follows: “It is again reiterated that your
request cannot be acceded to till thedeclaration of the
final result of Combined Graduate Level (Main) Examination,
2005. No merit list is maintained for not selected
candidates. There is no provision in the Commission for
providing Xerox copies of OMR Sheet/ answer sheets, so no
question should arise for the required fee to get Xerox
copies of OMR / answer sheets.”The appeal was heard through
video conferencing on 22.1.2009. The following are present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, JaipurShri Ullas Jain Respondents
at CIC Studio, New Delhi. Shri V. K. Aggarwal, Under Secy.
SSC / CPIO Smt. Gayatri Sharma, Dy. Secy. (F.A.A.) CPIO
Shri V. K. Aggarwal, U.S. submitted that now results have
been declared, in consequence to which by a letter of
7.1.09 the following informationhas been conveyed to
appellant Shri Ullas Jain: “(a) You, (Roll number 1702513)
had secured total 370 marks in Assistant Stream, 365 marks
in CBI Stream in the writtenpart and 68 marks in Interview
in scheme ‘A’ of Combined Graduate Level Exam, 2005. (b)
Merit position number is allotted only to the finally
selected candidates. (c) There is no provision of giving
photocopies of evaluated answer sheets to the candidates.
In this connection, it is stated that earlier vide our
letter No. 1/1/2007-RTI/3 dated 26.4.2007 and 23.5.2007,
you were informed that your request for providing marks
cannot be acceded to by the Commission till the declaration
of the final result of CombinedGraduate Level (Main) Exam
2005. As the final result of the said exam has since been
declared by the Commission, the aggregate marks obtained by
you in the written part of each stream and also2
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Page 3
your interview marks are being informed to you, as per
policy of thisCommission.” A copy of the statement provided
to Shri Ullas Jain, Roll No. 1702513 wasalso submitted
together with the following report of 15.1.09 addressed to
thisCommission: “Commission has already made available the
requisite information which his available with the
Commission to Shri Ullas Jain of 5D-10 Jawahar Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan 302004, and copy of which is enclosed for
your ready reference. As per the policy of the Commission,
Commission is giving aggregate marks after the final
declaration of the result. It is always the endeavour of
the Commission to provide the information which is readily
available with it to the RTI applicants.” Appellant Shri
Ullas Jain submitted that although indeed he has received
the aggregate marks, these are not paper-wise and no merit
list has been provided. In response it was explained by
respondent Ms. Gayatri Sharma, DS that the SSC does not
maintain any merit list of candidates other than the
successful candidates. Moreover, although the SSC is in
possession of marks paper wise, because of the huge number
of candidates participating in the examination process,
issuing these to the public would inordinately occupy the
limited resources of the SSC in servicing rather than
focusing on its principal objectives. DECISION NOTICEUnder
sec. 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 the “right
to information” has been defined as follows: 2(j) "right to
information" means the right to information accessible
under this Act which is held by or under the control of any
public authority1“ 1Underlined by us for emphasis 3
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Page 4
Under the circumstances we agree that only such information
as is held bythe public authority can in fact be disclosed.
On the question of disclosure of marks in individual
examinations, we agree that placing this in the public
domainwould “disproportionately divert the resources of the
public authority”. Hence for this purpose appellant Shri
Ullas Jain may be invited to the office premises of the SSC
to inspect the marks sheet for this purpose on any date
convenient to him in the month of March, 2009. On the
question of answer sheets, the following is the decision of
thisCommission of 16.4.’07 in Appeal Nos.
CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; &
00394;CIC/OK/A/2006/00266/00058/00066 &00315 Rakesh Kumar
Singh & Ors vs. Lok Sabha Secretariat & Ors.39. In regard
to public examinations conducted by institutionsestablished
by the Constitution like UPSC or institutions established
by any enactment by the Parliament or Rules made thereunder
like CBSE, Staff Selection Commission, Universities., etc,
the function of which is mainly to conduct examinations and
which have an established system as fool-proof as that can
be, and which, bytheir own rules or regulations prohibit
disclosure of evaluated answer sheets or where the
disclosure of evaluated answer sheetswould result in
rendering the system unworkable in practice and on the
basis of the rationale followed by the Supreme Court in the
above two cases, we would like to put at rest the matter of
disclosure of answer sheets. We therefore decide that in
suchcases, a citizen cannot seek disclosure of the
evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act, 2005. 40.
Insofar as examinations conducted by other
publicauthorities, the main function of which is not of
conducting examinations, but only for filling up of posts
either by promotion or by recruitment, be it limited or
public, the rationale of the judgments of the Supreme Court
may not be applicable in their totality, as in arriving at
their conclusions, the above judgments took
intoconsideration various facts like the large number of
candidates, the method and criteria of selection of
examiners, existence of a fool-proof system with proper
checks and balances etc. Therefore, in respect of these
examinations, the disclosure of the answersheets shall be
the general rule but each case may have to beexamined
individually to see as to whether disclosure of evaluated
answer sheets would render the system unworkable in
practice. If 4
------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Page 5
that be so, the disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets
could be denied but not otherwise. However, while doing so
the concerned authority should ensure that the name and
identity of the examiner, supervisor or any other person
associated with the process of examination is in no way
disclosed so as to endanger the life or physical safety of
such person. If it is not possible to do so in such cases,
the authority concerned may decline the disclosure of the
evaluated answer sheets u/s 8 (1) (g).For this reason, the
decision of the SSC on this subject is upheld. The appeal
is thus allowed in part. There will be no cost. Announced
in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of
cost to the parties. (Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information
Commissioner 22.1.2009 Authenticated true copy. Additional
copies of orders shall be supplied against application and
payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the
CPIO of this Commission. (Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint
Registrar 22.1 .2009 5