Central Information Commission
Deepika Nitin Dalvi vs Indian Institute Of Technology , Mumbai on 2 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: Two Matters.
(1) CIC/IITMU/A/2025/625501
(2) CIC/IITMU/A/2025/619946
Deepika Nitin Dalvi .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOMBAY,
RTI CELL, POWAI, MUMBAI - 400076 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.04.2026
Date of Decision : 02.04.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
(1) CIC/IITMU/A/2025/625501
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.12.2024
CPIO replied on : 15.01.2025
First appeal filed on : 23.01.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 11.03.2025
2nd Appeal dated : 31.05.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.12.2024 seeking the
following information:
Page 1 of 16
"Subject: Request for Information under RTI Act, 2005 regarding the
Technical Superintendent Examination (Advertisement No. Admin-
II/EXT144/2023)
Dear Sir/Madam,
Under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, I request
information regarding the Technical Superintendent Examination
conducted under Advertisement No. Admin-II/EXT144/2023, for which I
had applied under Application ID 50469918 and Job Ref. No. 50460479.
For ease of reference and organization, I have included all specific queries
in the attached document titled Attachment: RTI_Queries.
Configuration, Hardware, and OS Details:
1. Provide the configuration, hardware specifications, and operating
system (OS) details of all base/host machines used during the skill test.
2. Include details of all installed kernel versions of the OS on these
machines. Virtual Box Application Version:
3. Provide the version of the Virtual Box application installed on all
base/host machines used during the skill test. Instances of Machine
Changes During the Skill Test:
4. How many candidates were required to change their base machines
during the skill test?
5. How many times did each machine change occur? Logs of Virtual Box
Machines:
6. Provide system logs of all Virtual Box machines that were changed for
candidates due to technical issues during the skill test. System
Identification Details:
7. Provide identification details (e.g., MAC address, machine ID, etc.) along
with the system numbers of all machines used and allocated to candidates
during the skill test.
8. Include similar details for all malfunctioning systems that were changed
during the test. Analysis of Malfunctioning Systems:
9. Provide a detailed analysis of the issues identified in all malfunctioning
systems that required replacements during the skill test. Details of Virtual
Machine OS and ISO Integrity:
10.Provide details of the OS to be installed on the virtual machines used
during the skill test.
11.Include the results of any ISO file integrity checks performed prior to
the test. Detailed Evaluation of My Skill Test:
12.Provide a detailed evaluation report of my performance during the skill
test.
13.Include Virtual Box application logs of both the machines allocated to
me--before and after the malfunction of the first system. Checksum
Details for ISO Files:
Page 2 of 16
14.Provide checksum details verifying the integrity of the ISO files used on
both systems allocated to me during the skill test.
15.Include any differences or observations between the two ISO files.
Analysis of OS Kernel and Virtual Box Conflicts:
16.Provide a detailed analysis of any conflicts identified between the base
machine OS kernel, the virtual machine OS kernel, and the different
versions of Virtual Box applications used during this skill test. Extra Time
Provided to Candidates:
17.Provide details of how much extra time was provided to each candidate
during the skill test.
18.Include the basis or criteria used to measure and decide the amount of
extra time given. Past Recruitment Processes in the Same Lab: 19.Provide
details of previous recruitment processes where the same lab was used for
skill tests.
20.Include information about any instances of system malfunctions and
the amount of extra time provided to candidates during those tests due to
such issues. Skill Tests Not Conducted for Similar-Level Posts: 21.Provide
the reasons for not conducting a skill test for the recruitment under Job
Reference No. 50454187 (Advertisement No. Admin-II/EXT114/2023).
22.Provide a list of all recruitments at the same level conducted without a
skill test from 1st January 2023 onwards till date, including: a. Job
reference numbers. b. Advertisement numbers. c. Post details
(designation, department, etc.). Compliance with IT Act, 2000 for Online
Skill Tests:
23.What measures were taken to comply with the provisions of the IT Act,
2000, particularly those concerning secure electronic record management,
audit trails, and prevention of unauthorized access during the online skill
test? System and Data Integrity:
24.What precautions were taken to ensure system integrity, such as digital
signatures, encryption, and hash verification, during and after the
examination?
25.Was the data from the skill test subjected to an integrity check (e.g.,
checksums or hash values) to ensure no manipulation occurred after the
test? Secure Infrastructure for Conducting Tests:
26.Were the systems used during the skill test equipped with updated
security patches and antivirus software to prevent vulnerabilities?
27.Were firewalls, IDS/IPS, or other security controls in place on the
network and systems used for the test? Audit Trails and Logs:
28.Were comprehensive audit trails maintained during the skill test,
including system logs, login/logout timestamps, and any remote access
logs?
Page 3 of 16
29.Provide details of measures taken to safeguard these logs from
tampering or deletion. Authentication and Authorization:
30.What protocols were used to ensure secure authentication and prevent
unauthorized access to systems during the test?
31.Were unique credentials provided to each candidate for accessing the
system? Testing and Validation of Exam Systems:
32.Was a pre-test validation conducted on all systems and software to
ensure they were functioning properly and compatible with the testing
environment?
33.Provide details of any third-party or independent checks conducted on
the system's readiness for the test. Backup and Contingency Plans:
34.What backup measures were implemented to address system failures
or crashes during the test?
35.Were contingency systems or spare machines pre-allocated to avoid
prolonged disruptions? Post-Test Data Security:
36.What provisions were made to securely store the data collected during
the test to prevent unauthorized access or data breaches?
37.Were data logs and candidate records encrypted during storage and
transfer? Transparency and Dispute Redressal Mechanisms:
38.What mechanisms were implemented to ensure transparency in test
evaluation, especially for candidates who reported technical issues during
the skill test?
39.Was a formal grievance redressal system established to handle
complaints related to technical disruptions during such recruitment
exams, processes, or skill tests? If yes, provide a soft copy of the supporting
document indicating the date of establishment of such system.
40.Is there a defined time-line or guideline for responding to such
representations or complaints received by the administration or
authorities of IIT Bombay? If yes, provide a soft copy of the policy or
guidelines. Policy Guidelines for Online Examinations:
41.Does IIT Bombay or the concerned government body have a
documented policy or guidelines for conducting Online technical skill tests
in compliance with the IT Act, 2000?
42.If yes, provide a soft copy of the policy or guidelines. Known
Compatibility Issues with VirtualBox and Ubuntu:
43.Was Ubuntu 24.04 LTS used as the guest OS on VirtualBox 6.1.50 or a
version earlier than 7.0 during the skill test?
44.If yes, what measures were taken to mitigate known compatibility
issues between VirtualBox 6.1.50 and Ubuntu 24.04 LTS when running on
a host machine with Ubuntu 22.04, such as:
a. Preventing installation freezing due to virtual hardware or driver
compatibility issues.
Page 4 of 16
b. Addressing guest OS freezing post-boot caused by conflicts with the
graphics driver (vmwgfx).
c. Avoiding instability caused by enabling drag & drop and shared
clipboard features.
d. Preventing issues with 3D acceleration and default display driver
settings.
45.Was a pre-test compatibility check conducted to ensure seamless
operation of VirtualBox with the specified configurations?
46.Provide details of any actions or patches applied to address these
compatibility issues during the skill test"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 15.01.2025 stating as
under:
"Point no. 1 to 18 & 23 to 38 & 43 to 46:
Information sought is available with the selection committee of the said
recruitment exercise and the same will be provided in due course of time
via email.
Point no. 19 & 20: Information not readily available as no such records are
documented.
Point no. 21: No information sought.
Point no. 22: Information not readily available as no such records are
documented. However, the said information can be provided against a job
ref. no. and advt. no. of a particular recruitment exercise.
Point no. 39: Currently, there is no specific grievance redressal system
dedicated exclusively to addressing complaints related to the recruitment
process. However, individuals who have concerns or grievances related to
recruitment may submit their complaints to The Registrar & The Dean
(Administrative Affairs).
Point no. 40: No such guidelines are available.
Point no. 41: No
Point no. 42: Not applicable."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal
dated 23.01.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 11.03.2025, stating as under-
"Reply :- No.REG/R-8(A)/2025
March 11, 2025
ORDER
I have gone through the RTI Appeal bearing registration No. IITMU/A/E/24/00011 dated 23.01.2025 as well as the RTI application Page 5 of 16 bearing registration No. IITMU/R/E/24/00502 dated 18.12.2024, of Ms Deepika Nitin Dalvi. After examining the appeal, it is observed that the information on point nos. 19 to 22 and 39 to 42, was provided by the CPIO to the Appellant, within the time limit, i.e., on 15.01.2025.
Moreover, the Appellant was notified that the solicited information on point nos. 1 to 18, 23 to 38 & 43 to 46 is available with the selection committee of the said recruitment exercise and the same shall be provided to the Appellant in due course of time, via email. Accordingly, as per the reply received from the respective selection committee, information on point no.1 to 18, 23 to 38 & 43 to 46 is attached herewith.
In light of the aforementioned information, the appeal is disposed of."
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"...Grounds for Second Appeal: I am aggrieved by the response of the CPIO and FAA of IIT Bombay, as they have failed to provide full, accurate, and lawful responses to several clear, specific queries posed under the RTI Act, 2005. In particular: Admissions of Non-Compliance with IT Act, 2000 and Security Protocols:
Q23-Q25: Respondents admit that compliance with the IT Act, 2000 was "not explicitly considered." Logs, audit trails, system authentication mechanisms, and backup protocols are either partially addressed or not recorded at all. Absence of digital signatures, encryption, or integrity checks raises questions about data protection and post-exam auditability. Inconsistent and Contradictory Responses: Despite acknowledging system issues (Q9), no detailed technical logs or root-cause analyses were provided. Q44-Q46 raise concerns about known compatibility issues between VirtualBox 6.1.50 and Ubuntu 24.04 LTS, but no mitigation logs, fixes, or monitoring data were submitted. Statements such as "no issues observed"
contradict answers about ISO corruption (Q9) and system failures requiring machine changes (Q4-Q5). Discrimination and Procedural Unfairness: No logs or definitive evaluation records were given for candidates impacted by system failure, including myself. The system logs (Q13) were simply posted to a URL without ensuring their authenticity or audit protection. Evaluation criteria, weightages, and performance records are not fully disclosed. Broader Public Interest: This case involves: Technical recruitment to a central government-funded academic institution. Concerns about digital fairness, test reliability, system integrity, and compliance with national IT laws. Lack of transparency and accountability in digital exam processes undermines trust in public recruitment. Additionally, many responses were marked Page 6 of 16 "information not available" without citing any exemption under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act: Q6: VirtualBox logs of changed machines. Q8: Details of all malfunctioning systems.
Q11 & Q14-15: ISO integrity check records and checksum values. Q16: Analysis of OS and VirtualBox conflicts.
Q19-22: Historical records of recruitment and system failures. Q23-24: IT Act compliance measures and data integrity mechanisms. Q33: Third-party validation of systems.
Q38: Transparency mechanisms for technically affected candidates. Q39-40: Absence of documented grievance redressal or timeline policy. The absence of records for such essential procedures implies poor record-keeping and procedural irregularities, especially in matters affecting public employment and technical examinations. Many answers provided evasively state "Information not available" without invoking Section 2(j) or providing a certification that the information is not held in material form. There is no indication of application of Section 2(f), 2(j), or 7(9) in the denial or limitation of data, violating procedural safeguards laid out in the RTI Act. The responses fail to meet standards of transparency and accountability, particularly given that the queries relate to a public recruitment examination where technical failures directly impacted candidates' outcomes. Specific observations include: Q6, Q8, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q23, Q24, Q25, Q26, Q28, Q29, Q33, Q38, Q39, Q40: Denied with vague reference to unavailability or non-maintenance of records without any certification. Under Section 2(j), if a public authority does not hold a record, the PIO is required to clearly state so with supporting certification.
Q11: The absence of ISO file integrity checks was acknowledged, but no rationale or compliance concern was addressed, despite the presence of corrupted ISO being the root cause of machine failures. Q12: While Annexure-II was referenced as providing a detailed evaluation of my skill test performance, the attached content merely outlines the general marking scheme. It does not contain my personalized performance details, score breakdown, comments by evaluators, or supporting logs. As such, it cannot be accepted as a "detailed evaluation report" within the meaning of Section 2(j). The PIO must provide certified records showing how I was specifically assessed against each criterion.
Q13: The response provided a URL (https://bighome.iitb.ac.in/index.php/s/ya5GmLR9MMKBTEi) for accessing logs of the machines allocated to me. However, no official certification was provided confirming the authenticity, completeness, and permanency of the data at the link. Moreover, such externally hosted URLs do not comply with the RTI Act's requirements for providing material information "under the control of the public authority" as per Section 2(j). A proper reply should Page 7 of 16 include certified hard copies or digitally signed records containing the log extracts for both machines, before and after malfunction. Additionally, the VirtualBox logs provided at the above URL only represent the new machine setup and fail to include logs from the original malfunctioning machine. The excerpt shows that the new VirtualBox session started at 2024-09- 10T10:17:25Z (i.e., 3:47:25 PM IST). Since the skill test began around 3:00 PM IST, this indicates a loss of nearly 35-40 minutes due to technical failure. This missing log evidence undermines the claim that all logs were made available and contradicts the assertion of a fair and traceable transition between systems.
Q23 - Q25: The CPIO explicitly stated that compliance with the IT Act, 2000 was not considered, which reflects procedural negligence in handling digital records and assessments.
Q19 - Q22: Repeated claim of "no such records are documented" ignores the responsibility of public authorities to maintain recruitment records or provide clear policy on documentation practice.
Q38 - Q40: No transparency or grievance redressal mechanism for candidates impacted by system failures. This undermines trust in the process and violates Section 4(1)(d) of the Act.
Q43 - Q46: The use of Virtual Box 6.1.50 with Ubuntu 24.04 has known compatibility issues. While the CPIO claims no such problems were observed, no pretest validation reports, logs, or proactive mitigation measures were documented."
(2) CIC/IITMU/A/2025/619946 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.11.2024 CPIO replied on : 15.01.2025 First appeal filed on : 01.05.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 18.02.2025 2nd Appeal dated : 01.05.2025 Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.11.2024 seeking the following information:
"Under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, I request the following information regarding the Technical Superintendent Examination conducted under Advertisement No. Admin-II/EXT144/2023:
1. Details of technical issues reported during the skill test on September 10, 2024, at the Bytes Lab, Computing Complex.Page 8 of 16
2. Copies of logs or formal complaints recorded regarding the technical issues during the skill test.
3. Actions taken to address reported technical issues and findings of any investigation conducted into these issues.
4. Minutes of meetings or documents discussing rescheduling the skill test for affected candidates, if applicable.
5. Criteria and methodology used to evaluate skill test performance, especially for candidates affected by technical issues.
6. Correspondence or actions taken in response to complaints (including mine, dated September 11 and October 7, 2024) reporting technical disruptions.
7. IIT Bombays policy for handling technical disruptions during examinations.
8. Justification for declaring the result despite unresolved complaints regarding the skill test.
9. Moderation process for evaluation of written and skill tests, including evaluator details and any audit or review conducted to ensure fairness.
10. Marks obtained by all candidates (anonymized) for each skill test question for transparency in evaluation.
11. Measures implemented to prevent manipulation or malfunctions in the current recruitment process.
12. Date and time of issuance of offer letters to selected candidates for Advertisement No. Admin-II/EXT144/2023, along with anonymized copies.
13. Date and time of result declaration for Advertisement No. Admin- II/EXT144/2023 on the IITB jobs portal.
14. Copies of screenshots, logs, or documents captured by me during the skill test conducted on September 10, 2024.Page 9 of 16
15. Reasons for my non-selection, including marks obtained for every attempted questions of the examination (written, skill test). My registration number is 50469918.
16. Provide copies of my answer sheet, question papers, and model answer sheets used for evaluation.
17. Justification for my non-selection despite being ranked fourth in the written test (Application ID 50469918, Job Ref. No. 50460479), given reported technical disruptions during the skill test.
18. For Job Reference No. 50454187 (Advertisement No. Admin- II/EXT114/2023), basis for awarding only 3 marks out of 15 to a five-page correct answer to question number 33 (response to RTI Registration No. IITMU/R/E/24/00229) and guidelines used for subjective evaluation."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 15.01.2025 stating as under:
"Point No. 1 to 6, 14 & 16: Information sought is available with the selection committee of the said recruitment exercise and the same will be provided in due course of time via email.
Point No. 7: Information sought are not available in documented format, if any such cases occur at any point of time during any examination, final decisions are taken as per the instructions received from the concerned authority.
Point No. 8: No information sought.
Point No. 9: Moderation process for evaluation of written and skill tests are not available in documented format.
Evaluator details can not be shared as per 8(1)(g) of the RTI act, 2005. No audit or review was conducted for ensuring fairness of the examination. However, each and every step of selection process is governed as per Recruitment Rules and Promotion Policy, advertisement notified and IIT Bombay statutes in force.
Point No. 10: Information sought can be accessed at the following URL:Page 10 of 16
https://www.iitb.ac.in/announcement-staff/final-result-12-vacancies-2- sc-1-st-3-obc-ncl-4-ur-2-ews-technical Point No. 11: Information not available.
Point No. 12: Call letters were issued to the appointees on 21st November at 05:46 p.m. Further, anonymized copies of the same are not available.
Point No. 13: The final result for the post of Technical Superintendent (Job Ref. No. 50460479) was declared at 2:31 p.m. on 25th November 2024 in the Institute's website.
Point No. 15: Providing reasons does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the norms regarding the selection process in cases where both written test and skill test are held for a particular examination, can be referred from the clause no. 3.1.(a) of the RR & PP of the Institute provide at the following URL:
https://www.iitb.ac.in/sites/www.iitb.ac.in/files/2024- 04/Recruitment%20Rule%20%26%20Promotion%20Policy%20%28RR%2 6PP%29.pdf Information regarding marks obtained for every attempted questions of the examination (written, skill test) is available with the selection committee of the said recruitment exercise and the same will be provided in due course of time via email.
Point No. 17: No information sought.
Point No. 18: No information sought.
However, there are no such documented guidelines available for subjective evaluation."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.05.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 18.02.2025, stating as under-
"I have gone through the RTI Appeal dated 30.12.2024 as well as the RTI application No. IITMU/R/E/24/00462 dated 25.11.2024, of Ms Deepika Nitin Dalvi. After examining the appeal, it is found that the concerned office failed to reply within the given time frame. As a result, information was not communicated to the Appellant within the prescribed time limit.Page 11 of 16
Nonetheless, it is observed that on receipt of the information from the concerned office, the information was provided to the Appellant on points 7 to 13, 15, 17 & 18 via the RTI web portal, on 15.01.2025. Additionally, the Appellant was notified that the rest of the solicited information concerning point no. 1 to 6, 14 & 16, is available with the selection committee of the said recruitment exercise and the same shall be provided to the Appellant in due course of time, via email. Accordingly, as per the reply received from the selection committee, information on point no. 1 to 6, 14 & 16 is attached herewith.
In light of the aforementioned information, the appeal is disposed of.
Reply received from the selection committee-
Reply of point 1- The ISO image of the Ubuntu 24.04.OS that was provided on a few systems was found to be corrupted A copy of the action taken reports is provided at Annexure 1.1.
Reply of point 2- No logs of the corrupted ISO are available.
Further, copies of formal complaints (anonymized) are provided at Annexure 1.2 Reply of point3- Candidates who had reported the issue of a corrupted ISO were allowed 15 minutes extra time on a fresh system.
Findings of the investigation.
It has been observed that the Ubuntu-24.04 ISO file, which was provided for operating system installation, had some corruption on some of the systems at the time it was copied into the system.
Reply of point 4- Extract of the minutes of the meeting is provided below
1. The additional time of 15 minutes allotted to any candidate who had a corrupt ISO is adequate.
2. The slowness of the computers reported in the emails is not consistent with the fact that these machines are used regularly for labs and no issues have been received about these systems. The systems are i5 systems with 16 GB RAM and SSD disks and there was no technical issue with any of these systems.Page 12 of 16
3. The Committee confirmed that when the question paper was attempted on the same systems with the correct (and expected) configurations., there were no issues of slowness.
4. It is likely that the reason for the slow performance was due to misconfiguration of the VMs and the subsequent misconfiguration of the OS. For example not provisioning the required number of CPUs on the VM and not removing the default Ubuntu respository which would cause network delays, or not correctly adding the IITB respository to the package manager.
5. No change to the declared evaluation process is required.
Reply of point 5- As mentioned in the minutes of the committee meeting, no changes were made to the evaluation procedure for those affected by the issue. Further, the evaluation criteria used to evaluate the skills test is provided at Annexure-2.
Reply of point 6- IIT Bombay did not respond to any of the complaints that were received. Action taken has already been answered at Point no. 3 Reply of point7 to 13- Reply provided via RTI web portal on 15.01.2025 Reply of point14- Solicited information is provided at Annexure4 Reply of point15- Reply provided via RTI web portal on 15.01.2025 Reply of point16- Solicited information is provided at Annexure 3&4.
Reply of point 17 & 18- Reply provided via RTI web portal on 15.01.2025"
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-Page 13 of 16
Appellant: Smt. Deepika Nitin Dalvi along with her husband, Shri Nitin Dalvi present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Yogesh Patil, DR/CPIO present through video conference.
5. Written statement filed by the Appellant as well as by the CPIO are taken on record.
6. CPIO relied on his written statement averred that the Appellant has sought information by raising 46 queries in File No. CIC/IITMU/A/2025/625501 and 18 queries in File No. CIC/IITMU/A/2025/619946 seeking technical details of the machines used in the selection process for the post of technical superintendent against Advt. No. Amin-II/EXT144/2023, the information sought was partly related to the Recruitment Section and rest to the Selection Committee, which conducted the skill test. CPIO stated that point-wise reply along with relevant permissible information has been provided to the Appellant in the first instance and thereafter, the FAA also facilitated additional information with the revised reply. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice from the CIC, additional information was again provided to the Appellant through written statement. CPIO apprised the Bench that Appellant and his husband are the working employees of their organization, therefore, he is ready to provide every possible assistance to the Appellant in gather the information she sought for.
7. The Bench, at the outset, pointed out the Appellant that the queries raised in the RTI applications in question appears to be cumbersome, incoherent which apparently looks like impractical demand from the CPIO. The Bench asked the Appellant that if she can restrict her claim for information to specific query, then CPIO may be directed to provide further relevant information to Appellant's satisfaction. To this end, the Appellant's representative restricted their claim for relief to point No. 15 and 16 of RTI application in question in File No. CIC/IITMU/A/2025/625501 by stating that copy of question paper and answer sheet are not provided by the CPIO so far. Appellant prayed the Commission that directions may be issued to the CPIO to provide copy of question paper and answer sheet pertaining to subject advertisement.
Decision:
5. Heard the parties.Page 14 of 16
6. The Commission, at the outset observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought by the Appellant through the instant RTI Applications are cumbersome, indeterminate in nature, extremely voluminous, requires compilation, which also goes against the spirit of RTI Act, by taking away the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. The Commission also relies on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) wherein it was held:
"37.... Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." (Emphasis added)
7. However, ignoring the above said aspect, the Respondent has made a sincere effort to provide point-wise replies to the RTI application by accessing the same from the concerned departments, which is an appreciated.
8. Now as far as relief of information is concerned, the Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties at and perusal of the records observes that the Appellant during hearing restricted her claim to point No. 15 and 16 of RTI application of File No. CIC/IITMU/A/2025/625501 by stating that copy of question paper and answer sheet are not provided by the CPIO so far. In response to which, the CPIO agreed to revisit the contents of these points of RTI application to facilitate additional available relevant information subject to its availability to the Appellant.Page 15 of 16
9. In the light of above discussions, the Commission deems it fit to direct Shri Yogesh Patil, CPIO to revisit the contents of point No. 15 and 16 of RTI application of File No. CIC/IITMU/A/2025/625501 to provide copy of question paper and answer sheet of Appellant, as is permissible under the RTI Act, 2005, to the Appellant. This direction shall be complied by the CPIO within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लग ं ी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Ms. Deepika Nitin Dalvi Page 16 of 16 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)