Central Information Commission
Shailesh Awasthi vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 18 June, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AIIMS/A/2024/608241.
Shri. SHAILESH AWASTHI. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
All India Institute of Medical Sciences.
Date of Hearing : 12.06.2025
Date of Decision : 12.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.12.2023
PIO replied on : 19.01.2024
First Appeal filed on : 25.01.2024
First Appellate Order on : 13.02.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 27.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 36.12.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Please provide following information from examination section related to CRE- AIIMS advertisement number 239/2023 1- How many candidates have applied for post code 30 ie JAO/OA(NS)/EA(NS) 2- How many candidates have appeared in exam for post code 30 JAO/DA(NS)/EA(NS) 3- Were any question in general section was wrong in exam held on 18-12- 2023 4- Total number of questions considered for evaluation in general section 5- Total number of questions considered for evaluation in domain section 6- Total number of questions dropped (not considered for evaluation) in general section 7- Total number of questions dropped (not considered for evaluation) in domain section 8- Marks obtained by roll number 5703045 (myself) in general section. 9- Marks obtained by roll number 5703045 (myself) in domain section 10- Copy of question paper 11-Copy of answer keys"
The CPIO, Assistant Controller (Exams) vide letter dated 19.01.2024 replied as under:-
"Point 1:- Total 14070 candidates applied for the said post.
Page 1 Point 2:- Total 8606 candidates appeared for the said post.
Point 3 to 7:- In case of any wrong question got displayed in CBT, marks were awarded for all irrespective of answer as per opinion of subject expert. Point 8 and 9:- Individual result has been published in candidate MyPage, please visit and login using login credential of registration form.
Result of stages completed has been published on the website www.aiimsexams.ac.in and any further list / result or any kind of information will be published on website. Please visit www.aiimsexams.ac.in for information or any latest update published in relation to same.
Point 10 and 11:- AIIMS New Delhi does not disclose Question papers and answer keys/scripts in public domain as per its policy framed under powers granted under AIIMS Act 1956. Consequently, copying of questions and /or transmitting them in any form is also not allowed under procedures adopted for conduct of examination in larger public interest. The matter is under adjudication at the supreme court of India and stay was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.3.2019 in SLP (C) No. 7591/2019, SLP (C) No. 7601/2019 and SLP (C) No. 7600/2019 from disclosure of the same under RTI Act."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.01.2024. The FAA, Dean (Examination) vide order dated 13.02.2024 stated as under :-
"The RTI application and the grounds of appeal have been scrutinized by the Appellate Authority as per following detail:-
1. The applicant has claimed that CPIO, Examination Section has not provided the desired information under RTI Act.
2. CPIO Examination Section submitted that reply as per RTI Act was correct and based on facts and replied with in time frame and submitted copy of reply as mentioned above.
3. On scrutinizing of RTI application dated 26.12.2023 & grounds of appeal as claimed by the RTI applicant in his 1 appeal dated 25.01.2024 and reply submitted by CPIO Examination Section, the reply submitted by the CPIO, Examination Section seems satisfactory. Copy of reply enclosed herewith for information.
Appeal stands disposed off"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 04.06.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under
"..4. The individual total marks of each candidate was published in candidate "Mypage" on the portal.
Page 2
5. It is submitted that the examination was conducted in Computer-Based Test (CBT) mode, wherein all questions and answer options were randomized uniquely for each candidate through a secure internal software application. The entire process including question presentation, response recording, evaluation, and score generation was system-driven and executed as per the approved examination framework. The Scheme of Examination, as notified, stipulates that the qualifying criteria are based on the combined score of General and Domain sections, comprising a total of 80 questions for 80 marks. Accordingly, the scoring was conducted on the aggregate performance of both sections, and no separate scores were generated or published for General and Domain sections individually. Therefore, only the total score (out of 80 marks) has been computed and published on each candidate's dashboard in the portal as per the notified examination scheme. Further following additional information may also be considered: -
(a) Further Regarding point no 3, it is informed that no question was declared wrong
(b) For query 4 & 5, all questions asked in CBT are considered for evaluation as per scheme of examination, where answered marked for review are considered as not answered
(c) For point no 6,7 no questions were dropped.
(d) For query 8 & 9, As such, segregated scores for General and Domain sections are not readily available in the system architecture. Extracting such data retrospectively for individual candidates would require diversion of substantial technical and administrative resources, which is not feasible.
(e) For 10 & 11, AIIMS, New Delhi does not disclose Question papers and answer keys/scripts in public domain as per its policy framed under power granted under AIIMS Act 1956.
Consequently, copying of question and/or transmitting them in any form is also not allowed under procedures adopted for conduct of examination in larger public interest. The matter is under adjudication at the supreme court of India and stay was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.03.2019 in SLP (C) No. 7591/2019, SLP (C) No. 7601/2019 and SLP (C) No. 7600/2019 from disclosure of the same under RTI Act..."
Written submission has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Dr. Naval K Vikram, Associate Dean, Exams- participated in the hearing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He further stated that the relevant information furnished at point No. 3 is incorrect and inconsistent replies has been furnished by the Page 3 PIO. He averred that question paper, response sheet, marks details and answer key has not been provided by the PIO.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been furnished to the Appellant as available in their records. He stated that as per their records there is no model answer key since the questions are arranged in different pattern for each candidate.
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that the need for transparency and fairness is more in the selection process of recruitment exams. Accordingly, the Commission directs the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide response sheet of the Appellant specifically mentioning the Appellant's response, correct answer key and marks obtained by him in reference to CRE-AIIMS advertisement number 239/2023 with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)