On being denied information, the applicant Satya Narain Shukla, a Lucknow resident, submitted a list before the CIC, claiming that records containing details sought by him were maintained by the UPSC.

However, the apex recruitment body claimed that such records were not available with it and the documents submitted by Shukla were forged.

“This dispute goes beyond the realm of simply providing information....UPSC may consider filing an FIR to establish that the records submitted by him are forgeries and UPSC have no such records,” Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said.

Shukla has filed an RTI plea in June 2006 seeking names and addresses of wards of OBC and SC/ST category government officers, who got selected in civil services exams, along with the total marks obtained by each of them, father’s name, designation and emoluments.

He also sought information on names and addresses of the children of general category government officers who could not get selected despite having obtained more marks than the reserved category candidates.

In response to his plea, the UPSC said it was not possible for it to provide such information as it did not keep profession-wise records of parents of the candidates.

Regarding the details on general category candidates, it replied that the information could not be disclosed.

Shukla filed an appeal against the decision of the UPSC, seeking a direction to it to provide the information.

He also submitted photostat copies of candidates’ details for Civil Service examination of 2004-05, terming the UPSC’s contention that it did not have details of profession of candidates’ parents as “incorrect.”

During the hearing on the matter, the UPSC submitted records before the CIC, which were different from the copies submitted by the appellant.

“For want of any contrary evidence, we must accept the copies submitted by the UPSC as genuine records,” Habibullah said.

The apex transparency panel, however, rejected UPSC’s contention, saying “the marks obtained and parentage of candidates for examination can in no way be construed to be a fiduciary relationship.”