Civil Service Exam : CIC Questions UPSC, DoPT Decision To Discontinue Publishing Of Paper-Wise Marks Of Successful Candidates

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has criticized the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) over their “contradictory stances” regarding disclosure of paper-wise marks of successful Civil Services Examination (CSE) candidates, observing that the rationale for discontinuing the practice after CSE 2017 has not been satisfactorily explained.

While hearing a second appeal filed by UPSC aspirant Aniket Kumar Gupta under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a bench of Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam directed the DoPT to file comprehensive written submissions along with supporting records explaining why publication of bifurcated marks was stopped and why the Commission should not recommend reinstating the earlier practice.

The dispute centres around the non-disclosure of detailed marks secured by recommended candidates in each General Studies paper, optional subject papers, Essay, and Personality Test from CSE 2014 to CSE 2023.

The appellant argued that until CSE 2017, UPSC used to publicly disclose paper-wise marks of recommended candidates. However, from CSE 2018 onwards, only aggregate written marks and interview marks have been published, without any subject-wise breakup.

Appearing in person, the Appellant-candidate argued that UPSC publicly disclosed paper-wise marks till CSE 2017, but stopped the practice from 2018 onwards, publishing only aggregate written and interview marks. He submitted that the lack of official data allows coaching institutes to make misleading claims about “high-scoring” optional subjects and toppers' performances.

The appellant contended that aspirants, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are forced to rely on unverifiable coaching advertisements while choosing optional subjects.

UPSC defended the nondisclosure by claiming that detailed subject-wise marks constitute “personal information.” DoPT also argued that disclosure could lead to misuse by coaching institutes and create misleading perceptions among aspirants.

However, the CIC noted inconsistencies in the submissions of UPSC and DoPT. While DoPT claimed that subject-wise marks are maintained solely by UPSC, UPSC stated that such information is shared with DoPT.

"The CPIO did not produce any corroborative record, circular, policy or file noting in support of the decision to discontinue the averred practice and solely premised his contentions based on institutional memory. In fact, the CPIO, UPSC confirmed during the hearing that there were no mandate or instructions to DoPT from their end to discontinue the practice of publishing bifurcated marks of recommended candidates. Also, as per the written submissions filed by the CPIO, DoPT dated 07.05.2026, it is stated under Para 5 that the subject-wise marks are prepared, maintained and retained solely by UPSC. To the contrary, the CPIO, UPSC in his submissions dated 30.01.2026 have stated in Para 5 that all information including subject-wise marks are passed on to DoPT.”, the commission noted.

The Commission also observed that the respondents failed to explain why the practice of publishing bifurcated marks was discontinued after 2017 and noted that the appellant's arguments regarding the selective application of the “personal information” exemption remained unanswered.

Accordingly, the CIC directed DoPT to file detailed written submissions along with supporting documents, including any policy decisions or circulars behind the discontinuation of the practice, and explain why the Commission should not recommend reinstating the publication of paper-wise marks.

“…considering that the basis for discontinuation of the practice has not been satisfactorily clarified, CPIO, DoPT is given a final opportunity to furnish comprehensive, categorical, and self-explanatory written submissions to this Commission, indicating the reasons for discontinuing the practice of publication of breakup of Mains examination marks of all recommended candidates, duly supported by relevant records, file notings, circulars, policy decisions, or any other documentary evidence available on record; and explain as to why the Commission shall not recommend reinstating the practice of publication of bifurcation of recommended candidates' marks in the Civil Services Examinations within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”, the Commission stated.

Cause Title: Aniket Kumar Gupta VERSUS CPIO, UPSC & Anr.

Click here to download order

Related - Supreme Court Appreciates UPSC Decision To Publish Answer Keys After Civil Service Preliminary Exams