Full Text
Translation output
A-13
% 28.09.2011
Present: Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent.
+Cont. Cas.(C) No. 702/2011
*
~-
Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent; his contention is that the directions contained in the order of the Single Judge dated 17.04.2007 have not been honoured; the respondent is prima facie guilty of contempt. The directions which are relevant to answer this controversy are reproduced hereinbelow:
"Directions (i) & (ii) given by the Central Information
Commission do not call for any interference except to the extent that in Direction (ii) there is reference to cut-off marks for
General Studies and each of the optional papers whereas, in point of fact, there is only one cut-off mark for the combined total of raw
General Studies marks and scaled optional paper marks. Thus, that cut-off needs to be disclosed. As regards direction No. (iii), the same is modified to the extent that the UPSC shall disclose the model answers. As regards the disclosure of the scaling system, it is apparent that the same already stands disclosed, as indicated above, and, therefore, nothing further needs to be done in that regard."
Direction No. 1 of the CIC has not been interfered with in any manner. The grievance of the petitioner in fact relates to direction No. 1 only. Direction No. 1 of the CIC reads as under:
"i) The UPSC shall, within two weeks from the date of this order, disclose the marks assigned to each of the applicants for
~-·-·-
-·-·-
:_.,__
~·--
2011:DHC:9781
/~~
"-\. the Civil Services Preliminary Examination, 2006 in General
Studies and in Optional Papers;"
The details of the marks assigned to each of the applicant in the Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2006 in the General
Studies and in Optional Paper have been furnished to the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that there has been no bifurcation of the raw marks or the scaled marks; this should have been done. The directions contained in the order dated 17.04.2007 are clear; there has been no modification in direction No. 1 of the
CIC; this has not made any reference separately to the raw marks or to scaled marks; it is not in dispute that the marks otherwise have been disclosed to the petitioner; in this background no contempt is made out. Even otherwise no explanation has been given for delay.
Petition is dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 rb
~
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
)
,~-,~~
~
-~'--
2011:DHC:9781
% 28.09.2011
Present: Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent.
+Cont. Cas.(C) No. 702/2011
*
~-
Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent; his contention is that the directions contained in the order of the Single Judge dated 17.04.2007 have not been honoured; the respondent is prima facie guilty of contempt. The directions which are relevant to answer this controversy are reproduced hereinbelow:
"Directions (i) & (ii) given by the Central Information
Commission do not call for any interference except to the extent that in Direction (ii) there is reference to cut-off marks for
General Studies and each of the optional papers whereas, in point of fact, there is only one cut-off mark for the combined total of raw
General Studies marks and scaled optional paper marks. Thus, that cut-off needs to be disclosed. As regards direction No. (iii), the same is modified to the extent that the UPSC shall disclose the model answers. As regards the disclosure of the scaling system, it is apparent that the same already stands disclosed, as indicated above, and, therefore, nothing further needs to be done in that regard."
Direction No. 1 of the CIC has not been interfered with in any manner. The grievance of the petitioner in fact relates to direction No. 1 only. Direction No. 1 of the CIC reads as under:
"i) The UPSC shall, within two weeks from the date of this order, disclose the marks assigned to each of the applicants for
~-·-·-
-·-·-
:_.,__
~·--
2011:DHC:9781
/~~
"-\. the Civil Services Preliminary Examination, 2006 in General
Studies and in Optional Papers;"
The details of the marks assigned to each of the applicant in the Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2006 in the General
Studies and in Optional Paper have been furnished to the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that there has been no bifurcation of the raw marks or the scaled marks; this should have been done. The directions contained in the order dated 17.04.2007 are clear; there has been no modification in direction No. 1 of the
CIC; this has not made any reference separately to the raw marks or to scaled marks; it is not in dispute that the marks otherwise have been disclosed to the petitioner; in this background no contempt is made out. Even otherwise no explanation has been given for delay.
Petition is dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 rb
~
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
)
,~-,~~
~
-~'--
2011:DHC:9781
JUDGMENT