Central Information Commission
Mr. Aseem Nasnodkar vs Indian Institute Of Management (Iim), ... on 24 December, 2010
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/WB/C/2010/000239AD
Adjunct to CIC Decision of even No. dt.1.12.10
Date of Hearing : December 24, 2010
Date of Decision : December 24, 2010
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Aseem Nasnodkar
Green View Apartments
B3, 1st Floor
Alto - Betim,
Porvorim
Goa 403 521
Appellant - Not Present
Respondent
Indian Institute of Management
Vastrapur
Ahmedabad 380 015
Represented by : Shri Satish Deodhar, Professor was heard through audio
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
The Commission on review of the submissions on record and after hearing the submission of the Respondent
noted that available information has been provided to the Appellant and also denies the disclosure of answer
sheets to the Appellant while relying on the Full Bench Decision of CIC in Complaint No.
CIC/WB/C2006/00223; Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 ;Appeal Nos.
CIC/OK/A/2006/00266/00058/00066/00315 dated 23.4.07 . In the interest of the Appellant, the PIO is directed
to provide an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant affirming the fact that the information as
sought by the Appellant is not available with the Public Authority while giving reasons for the same.
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/WB/C/2010/000239AD
ADJUNCT ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.18.3.10 with the PIO, IIM, Ahmedabad seeking information against 7 points with regard to the CAT 2009 exam including no. of questions attempted by him correctly and incorrectly, marks awarded for each correct attempt, penalty for an incorrect attempt, whether the marking scheme followed was uniform or any other criteria was used, how the difficulty level of various slots had been determined, whether PIO is aware of one question in his slot which had missing data and if yes, how has it been accounted for in the final evaluation of his score, was any communication sent to his email ID for second phase of testing to those candidates whose computer did not work, how his score were calculated in the three sections etc.
2. Shri K.S.Joshi, PIO replied on 13.4.10 stating that the RTI application was received on 8.4.10 while enclosing the response from the CAT Centre saying the following:
'We appreciate your concerns. IIMs have assigned the technical job of delivery of CAT and scoring to Prometric. We only have scaled scores and percentiles which have been communicated to all candidates through official CAT website. CAT Centre itself does not have any other records or information you seek. However, to facilitate quick communication on the matter, we have made a formal arrangement to respond through Candidate Care Service. For this purpose, candidate may send his/her specific request by email to [email protected]. Mention "RTICAT Registration Number" in the subject window of the email. Prometric will give an appropriate response on behalf of IIMs.'
3. The Applicant subsequently received the following response from the CAT Candidate Care Support:
'We have carefully reviewed your responses, rechecked your scores and have found them to be absolutely correct. You will be happy to note that they are exactly the same as reported to you on www.catiim.in. To safeguard certain information which is proprietary to Prometric and IIM and to ensure the integrity and security of CAT, it will not be possible for us to disclose the additional information that you are requesting for. We continue with this practice which has been followed all along in CAT and in all other tests of other educational institutions. You will understand that the purpose of the test is to assess a candidate's aptitude and skill in a domain. Public disclosure of the questions, its contents, answer keys and specific scoring procedures for each candidate compromise validity and subsequent use of the questions.'
4. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a complaint dt.12.5.10 before CIC.
5. The Commission received a rejoinder dt.20.12.10 from Shri J.Albert Xavier, PIO enclosing the following comments provided by Prof.Satish Y. Deodhar.
Response to questions 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 of the petitioner
a) It is a fact that IIMs do not have the information the Petitioner seeks. This is not something that is true only for the computerized CAT2009. All these years when CAT was conducted in paper pencil format, the result processing agency only provided scores and percentiles necessary for IIMs for the next stage of candidate selection. No other information was available to IIMs, and, therefore, was not shared with the candidates.
b) In computerized CAT as well, we received only the scores and percentiles from Prometric. In fact, CAT2009 being the first year of computerized CAT, IIMs proactively responded to (hoards of RTI) queries such as that of the Petitioner by arranging to respond through Prometric. We did not intend to shirt from our responsibility but facilitate quick response. If the intent of petitioner's questions was to know whether or not his scores were calculated correctly, Prometric has responded to that intent. The scores have been calculated correctly.
c) In multiform computerized tests such as GRE, GMAT, TOEFL etc., many questions are used in future test deliveries, either cloned or very similar. The intent of the tests is not to test memorization but candidate's analytical skills. Test developers do not want exposure to test questions, neither to others nor to candidates themselves who quite often take the test multiple times. Giving information regarding correct and incorrect attempts and the test itself does give out vital information which can get used by the candidate in future test deliveries and can also get passedon to other potential candidates and coaching classes. The exposure is avoided in computerized tests as candidates cannot carry test papers with them after the test is over. It has been psychometrically proven that aftertest memory retention is very weak at best and misleading. Therefore, test delivery vendors do not share any analysis that might promote question exposure.
d) The questions and solutions are the intellectual property of IIMs though they are not in the possession of IIMs. They may, however, be used in future test administration. Similarly, the scoring methodology is the intellectual property of Prometric. While basic information about the scoring methodology is already provided on CAT website (http://www.catiim.in/faq.html) and Prometric website, the exact details of the methodology are quite complex, and importantly are the intellectual property of Prometric. Under Section 8(1)9d) of the RTI Act, we opine that any such intellectual property is exempt from disclosure. Further, disclosure of test forms, correct answers, wrong answers, and answer keys sought may be of interest to some petitioner(s) but it is not in the larger public interest, for disclosure would hamper the ability of IIMs to select innately good candidates in future administrations of CAT. Selection of innately good candidates is a paramount consideration of public interest, for these candidates, after graduation are going to serve the society at large.
e) Many of the RTI queries including the present petitioner's queries need further processing of existing data which one may not have to do under RTI Act. Also, as per the Section 9 of the RTI Act, vendor chosen by IIMs is not a state/public institution and RTI, is not applicable to such institutions. Considering all the above arguments, therefore, Prometric's response has been framed in the peculiar manner.
f) While we understand that the issues related to RTI Act are becoming quite clear to us as we gain first hand experience, and, that we would very much like to honour the letter and spirit of the Act, computerized, multiform tests, though very common in developed countries, are a new entity in the Indian academic environment. In our opinion, the nuances of data availability, security, integrity and intellectual property of a multiform computerized test have made us to respond the way we have responded to Mr.Nasnodkar. We would like to submit to you to give consideration to the above. In fact, for petition of this nature received earlier, we have furnished to CIC similar response as above. Response to questions 4 and 5 of the petitioner
g) The criteria set for eligibility for the retest and those who were called, was based on the site reports filed by the site managers, computer logs, corroboration from calls and email received from candidates and information gathered from websites and blogs. Only those who were eligible were sent the emails for a retest.
h) Mr.Aseem Nasnodkar did not meet any of the criteria for eligibility and hence was not sent any email to appear for a retest. We have checked with Prometric and they have confirmed that Mr.Nasnodkar did not meet any of the criteria including the one mentioned by Mr.Nasnodkar in his petition.
6. The Commission on review of the submissions on record and after hearing the submission of the Respondent noted that available information has been provided to the Appellant and also denies the disclosure of answer sheets to the Appellant while relying on the Full Bench Decision of CIC Complaint No. CIC/WB/C2006/00223; Appeal Nos. CIC/WB/A/2006/00469; & 00394 ;Appeal Nos. CIC/OK/A/2006/00266/00058/00066/00315 dated 23.4.07 .
7. In the interest of the Appellant, the PIO is directed to provide an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant affirming the fact that the information as sought by the Appellant is not available with the Public Authority while giving reasons for the same. The affidavit to reach the Commission by 5.1.11 and the Appellant to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 10.1.11.
8. The complaint is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Aseem Nasnodkar Green View Apartments B3, 1st Floor Alto - Betim, Porvorim Goa 403 521
2. The Public Information Officer Indian Institute of Management Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015
3. Officer Incharge, NIC