Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| — | rti-for-upsc-ssc-recruitment [2026/07/22 15:48] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{htmlmetatags> | ||
| + | ====== RTI for UPSC and SSC marks, cut-offs and answer keys ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round info 95%> | ||
| + | **Quick Reply:** Missed UPSC or SSC cut-off? File RTI for scored marks, answer key, category cut-off and interview marks - fees, sample letter and the Angesh Kumar scaling limit. | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP info> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== The story most citizens recognise ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Aniket, a 24-year-old from a district headquarter town in eastern Uttar Pradesh, sat the **UPSC Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, | ||
| + | |||
| + | He is not alone. Every year, lakhs of candidates who sit **UPSC Civil Services, UPSC EPFO, SSC CGL, SSC CHSL, SSC MTS, SSC GD and the Combined Defence Services** examination land in the same fog - a result that declares pass or fail but hides the arithmetic. A one-mark margin decides whether a year of preparation continues or ends. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is the only statutory tool that lets a candidate pull that arithmetic into the open. This guide shows exactly what you can ask for from UPSC and SSC, what the commissions lawfully refuse, and how to draft the application so the PIO cannot fall back on a vague exemption. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== What the law actually allows (and blocks) ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Both UPSC and SSC are " | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Supreme Court has drawn the line sharply in two companion judgments delivered a month apart in 2011. In **CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, | ||
| + | |||
| + | A few weeks later, in **Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781** (decided 2 September 2011), the same bench refined the rule: the instructions, | ||
| + | |||
| + | A second Supreme Court ruling - **UPSC v. Angesh Kumar, (2018) 4 SCC 530** (decided 20 February 2018) - is the one most candidates miss. The Court set aside a Delhi High Court direction and held that information regarding **raw and scaled marks, the scaling methodology, | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP tip> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== How the recruitment and disclosure flow works ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | To ask a sharp question, you need to know which office holds which record. UPSC conducts the Civil Services Examination, | ||
| + | |||
| + | The records are held at two levels. **UPSC** keeps all Civil Services Examination records at its headquarters - the CPIO sits at **Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110069**. SSC keeps headquarters records at **Under Secretary and CPIO (C.1/1), Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003** (phone 011-24368090), | ||
| + | |||
| + | Online filing for both UPSC and SSC headquarters goes through the **Central RTI portal at https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== The 2026 update you must know about ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Two things have changed in the recruitment-RTI landscape that you should build into your application in 2026. | ||
| + | |||
| + | First, **SSC' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Second, the **Angesh Kumar (2018) 4 SCC 530** rule is now being invoked more strictly by UPSC to refuse disclosure of the scaling formula and the subject-wise cut-offs for the Civil Services Preliminary Examination. Multiple CIC orders in 2024 and 2025 have upheld the refusal where the applicant showed no specific public interest beyond personal curiosity. The lesson is procedural: if you are asking for the scaling methodology or the raw-to-scaled mapping, **plead a specific public-interest ground in the application itself** - a narrow margin (one or two marks), a suspected normalisation error across a shift, or an inconsistency between the OMR response sheet and the declared score. A bare request without a pleaded public interest will be refused, and the refusal will likely stand on First Appeal. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Step-by-step: | ||
| + | |||
| + | - **Step 1 - Identify the right public authority.** For UPSC Civil Services, CDS, NDA, EPFO, Engineering Services or any UPSC-conducted exam, the CPIO is at **Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110069**. For SSC headquarters-conducted exams (CGL, CHSL, JE, MTS, Stenographer), | ||
| + | - **Step 2 - Prepare your identifiers.** Note your **roll number, registration/ | ||
| + | - **Step 3 - Draft specific questions.** Ask for named records, not " | ||
| + | - " | ||
| + | - " | ||
| + | - " | ||
| + | - " | ||
| + | - " | ||
| + | - " | ||
| + | - **Step 4 - Choose your filing route.** Online: go to **https:// | ||
| + | - **Step 5 - Keep proof.** Save the rtionline.gov.in registration number, or the postal acknowledgement. Proof of submission is your shield if the reply is delayed beyond 30 days. | ||
| + | - **Step 6 - Wait 30 days.** Under **Section 7(1)**, the CPIO must reply within **30 days** of receiving the application (48 hours where life or liberty is at stake - which does not apply to recruitment queries). If no reply arrives, or the reply is evasive, move to the escalation ladder below. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== The escalation ladder ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | RTI's strength is its built-in ladder. If the PIO ignores you or hides behind a vague exemption, you do not stop. | ||
| + | |||
| + | - **First Appeal:** Under **Section 19(1)**, file a First Appeal with the **First Appellate Authority (FAA)** in the same commission within **30 days** of the expiry of the PIO's deadline (or of receiving an unsatisfactory reply). There is **no fee** for a First Appeal to a Central authority. The FAA must decide within 30 days, extendable to 45. On rtionline.gov.in, | ||
| + | - **Second Appeal:** If the FAA also fails, file a **Second Appeal under Section 19(3)** with the **Central Information Commission** within **90 days**. There is no fee for a second appeal to the CIC. The CIC can order disclosure and impose a penalty of Rs.250 per day on the PIO, up to Rs.25,000, under Section 20. | ||
| + | - **Complaint under Section 18:** Where the PIO never replied at all or refused to accept the application, | ||
| + | |||
| + | For UPSC and SSC recruitment RTIs, the most common pattern is: the PIO releases your own marks, the final answer key and the category-wise cut-off at the first stage; refuses the scaling methodology and the raw-to-scaled mapping citing **Angesh Kumar**; and refuses examiner identity citing **Section 8(1)(e)** read with **Section 10**. The marks-and-key part is usually settled at the PIO stage; the scaling-formula part usually requires a First Appeal with a pleaded public interest, and often still fails. Use the **https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Documents to attach ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | - A copy of your **admit card** (with roll number, centre and shift). | ||
| + | - A copy of your **application/ | ||
| + | - The **provisional answer key** you relied on, if you are disputing a question. | ||
| + | - An **Indian Postal Order for Rs.10** (offline filing) or the rtionline.gov.in **payment receipt** (online filing). | ||
| + | - A **BPL certificate** if you are claiming the fee waiver. | ||
| + | - For interview-stage queries, the **personality-test e-summon letter** showing your board and date. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Common mistakes ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | - **Asking for "model answers" | ||
| + | - **Not citing Aditya Bandopadhyay when the PIO refuses scored marks.** A bare "give me my marks" invites a vague refusal. Citing the Supreme Court ruling by name and citation speeds up compliance. | ||
| + | - **Demanding the scaling formula as of right for UPSC Civil Services Prelims.** Under Angesh Kumar (2018) 4 SCC 530, this is not mechanically disclosable. Plead a specific public interest, or expect the refusal to stand. | ||
| + | - **Requesting another candidate' | ||
| + | - **Filing too late.** UPSC and SSC retention periods for answer-sheets and OMR data are limited (typically a few months to a couple of years post-result). The right under Aditya Bandopadhyay exists only during the retention period. File within weeks of the result, not after a year. | ||
| + | - **Filing at SSC headquarters for a regional exam.** Headquarters will return the application as "not held here." Identify the regional office and file there directly. | ||
| + | - **Using double apostrophes in the application text.** In DokuWiki and several PDF converters, double apostrophes (two single quotes back-to-back) open a code block and mangle your letter. Use single quotes. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Real-life example ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round box> | ||
| + | **Aniket, 24, district headquarter town, eastern Uttar Pradesh - UPSC Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, | ||
| + | |||
| + | Aniket appeared in the General Studies Paper I of the UPSC Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, | ||
| + | |||
| + | On 18 June 2025, Aniket filed an online RTI through rtionline.gov.in, | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Outcome on Day 28 (16 July 2025):** The CPIO furnished (a) his paper-wise scored marks, (b) the final answer key PDF for his shift, and (c) the category-wise cut-off including the EWS-PwBD sub-category. The CPIO refused (d) the scaling methodology, | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Total cost:** Rs.10 application fee. **Time taken:** 28 days for the PIO reply. Aniket filed a First Appeal on 30 July 2025 (within 30 days of the PIO reply) through rtionline.gov.in, | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Lesson:** File within weeks of the result, cite Aditya Bandopadhyay by name, ask for what is disclosable, | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Sample RTI letter ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | To, | ||
| + | The Central Public Information Officer, | ||
| + | Union Public Service Commission, | ||
| + | Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, | ||
| + | New Delhi - 110069 | ||
| + | [For SSC, substitute: Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, | ||
| + | CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Subject: Information under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information | ||
| + | Act, 2005, regarding my performance in the [Exam Name, Year, Stage]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Sir/Madam, | ||
| + | |||
| + | I, [Full Name], an Indian citizen, Roll Number ________ for the | ||
| + | [Exam Name, Year and Stage], Registration/ | ||
| + | Centre ________, Shift ________, submit the following request under | ||
| + | Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The information sought is | ||
| + | personal to me and falls within the ambit of " | ||
| + | under Section 2(f), as held in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, | ||
| + | (2011) 8 SCC 497. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Please furnish: | ||
| + | |||
| + | 1. A copy of the final answer key (post-challenge) for my | ||
| + | | ||
| + | 2. My scored marks, paper-wise and section-wise, | ||
| + | | ||
| + | 3. The category-wise cut-off for each stage of the [Exam Name, Year], | ||
| + | | ||
| + | as held disclosable in Kerala Public Service Commission v. State | ||
| + | | ||
| + | Nos. 823-855 of 2016). | ||
| + | 4. My Personality Test/ | ||
| + | as a pure number, if I appeared at that stage. | ||
| + | 5. The number of vacancies notified, the reservation roster, and any | ||
| + | draw from the reserved list for the [Exam Name, Year]. | ||
| + | 6. My rank at each stage and my final merit position. | ||
| + | 7. A copy of my OMR response sheet / computer-based-test response | ||
| + | | ||
| + | 8. The name and designation of the First Appellate Authority under | ||
| + | | ||
| + | |||
| + | [If requesting the scaling methodology for UPSC Civil Services | ||
| + | Prelims, add: I additionally request the scaling/ | ||
| + | methodology applied to my shift/ | ||
| + | mapping. I plead a specific public interest on the ground that | ||
| + | [set out the narrow margin / suspected normalisation error / shift | ||
| + | inconsistency], | ||
| + | in UPSC v. Angesh Kumar, (2018) 4 SCC 530.] | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have paid the application fee of Rs.10 through [rtionline.gov.in | ||
| + | payment receipt No. ________ / Indian Postal Order No. ________]. | ||
| + | I declare that I am an Indian citizen and that the information | ||
| + | sought is personal to me. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yours faithfully, | ||
| + | [Signature] | ||
| + | [Name] | ||
| + | [Address] | ||
| + | [Date] | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Frequently asked questions ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Can I get a copy of my evaluated answer script from UPSC or SSC? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes, in principle. The Supreme Court in **CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Will UPSC give me the scaling or normalisation formula for the Civil Services Prelims? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Not mechanically. In **UPSC v. Angesh Kumar, (2018) 4 SCC 530**, the Supreme Court set aside a Delhi High Court direction to disclose raw and scaled marks, the scaling methodology and cut-offs for the Preliminary Examination, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Can I see another candidate' | ||
| + | |||
| + | No. Another candidate' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Are category-wise cut-offs and the rank list disclosable? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes. The Supreme Court in **Kerala Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission (2016)** confirmed that category-wise cut-offs, rank data and scored marks are disclosable, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== What about "model answers" | ||
| + | |||
| + | Protected. In **ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781**, the Supreme Court held that instructions, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== How do I file online for UPSC or SSC? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Go to **https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== What is the fee, and who is exempt? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Central Government RTI application fee is **Rs.10** for UPSC and SSC, payable by Indian Postal Order, demand draft, court-fee stamp (where the rules permit), cash against receipt, or online through rtionline.gov.in. **BPL applicants are exempt** on production of a BPL certificate. There is **no fee for a First Appeal or a Second Appeal** to the Central Information Commission. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Do I file at SSC headquarters or the regional office? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | For exams conducted by SSC headquarters (CGL, CHSL, JE, MTS, Stenographer), | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== What if the PIO does not reply in 30 days? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | File a **First Appeal under Section 19(1)** with the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of the deadline. If the FAA also fails, file a **Second Appeal under Section 19(3)** with the Central Information Commission within 90 days. You can also file a **complaint under Section 18** where the PIO never replied or refused to accept the application. The CIC can order disclosure and penalise the PIO under Section 20. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Can I get re-evaluation through RTI? ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | No. The Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay held that **re-evaluation is not a relief available under the RTI Act**. You can inspect your evaluated answer-book and obtain your scored marks, but you cannot ask the PIO to re-award marks. Re-evaluation, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Related on RTI Wiki ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | - [[rti-for-recruitment-cutoff|RTI for recruitment cut-offs]] | ||
| + | - [[rti-for-recruitment-merit-list|RTI for recruitment merit lists]] | ||
| + | - [[rti-for-answer-sheet-inspection|RTI for answer-sheet inspection]] | ||
| + | - [[rti-for-answer-sheet-evaluation|RTI for answer-sheet evaluation]] | ||
| + | - [[rti-for-exam-result-delay|RTI for exam result delay]] | ||
| + | - [[rti-for-sarkari-exam-admit-card-problem|RTI for sarkari exam admit-card problems]] | ||
| + | - [[rti-for-police-railway-state-board-recruitment|RTI for police, railway and state board recruitment]] | ||
| + | - [[rti-for-students-and-youth|RTI for Students and Youth]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Sources ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | - RTI Act, 2005 - Sections 2(h), 2(f), 6(1), 7(1), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(g), 10, 11, 19, 20, 22: [righttoinformation.wiki](https:// | ||
| + | - CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, | ||
| + | - Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781: [indiankanoon.org](https:// | ||
| + | - UPSC v. Angesh Kumar, (2018) 4 SCC 530: [bnblegal.com](https:// | ||
| + | - Kerala Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission, (2016) Supreme Court, Civil Appeal Nos. 823-855 of 2016: [casemine.com](https:// | ||
| + | - UPSC RTI Transparency Officer notification (2026): [upsc.gov.in](https:// | ||
| + | - Staff Selection Commission - Regional Network: [ssc.nic.in](https:// | ||
| + | - Central RTI online portal - rtionline.gov.in FAQ: [rtionline.gov.in](https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | //Last reviewed: 5 July 2026.// | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{tag> | ||