Central Information Commission
Abhishek Srivastava vs National Testing Agency on 8 August, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/NTAGN/A/2024/642899
Abhishek Srivastava ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: National Testing
Agency, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 17.06.2024 FA : 25.07.2024 SA : Nil.
CPIO : 18.09.2024 FAO : 18.09.2024 Hearing : 24.07.2025
Date of Decision:08.08.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
I was a candidate for the post of EXAMINER OF PATENTS & DESIGNS recruitment, 2023 conducted by National Testing Agency on behalf of Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade. I cleared Preliminary Exam conducted on 21st December 2023, also successfully cleared Mains examination for the same and given Interview on 5th April 2024 for the same. My details are as follows, Name: Abhishek Srivastava, Registration No. - 2307007339, Roll No.- UP09001397. As per RTI Act 2005 (as amended), I seek following information regarding Paper-2 (descriptive) of the mains examination given by me, Page 1 of 8
1. Scanned Copy of all 40 pages of Answer sheet with marks given to me for each question and sub-parts thereof
2. A copy of Mains Question Paper (Paper-2)
3. Model Solution on which basis copy is evaluated.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. It is informed that the descriptive answer sheets for Mains Paper 2 were evaluated digitally by two independent experts. If there is a variation of more than 25 percentage in the marks awarded by the two experts, the head examiner is appointed to reevaluate the answer sheet. Providing a descriptive answer sheets including the individual evaluators markings could compromise the confidentiality and integrity of the evaluation process.
2. It is informed that the recruitment process is still ongoing. The question paper will be displayed after completion of the process.
3. The information sought by you is confidential in nature.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant appeared through Video Conference and on behalf of the respondent Dr. Ravish G.K, Assistant Director attended the hearing in person.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had failed to respond to his RTI application within stipulated time limit. He further stated that the CPIO replied on 18.09.2024 but has not provided the information sought by him.
Page 2 of 87. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the RTI application received at their end on 17.06.2024 was disposed of on 18.09.2024 with the following reply:
"1. It is informed that the descriptive answer sheets for Mains Paper 2 were evaluated digitally by two independent experts. If there is a variation of more than 25 percentage in the marks awarded by the two experts, the head examiner is appointed to reevaluate the answer sheet. Providing a descriptive answer sheets including the individual evaluators markings could compromise the confidentiality and integrity of the evaluation process.
2. It is informed that the recruitment process is still ongoing. The question paper will be displayed after completion of the process.
3. The information sought by you is confidential in nature."
On being queried, the respondent elaborated on their evaluation process involving two stages, wherein papers were digitally evaluated by two independent experts and in case of a variation of more than 25 percentage in the marks awarded by the two experts, the head examiner is appointed to re-evaluate the answer sheet. Further, the CPIO requested the Commission to allow them to submit additional submissions regarding the evaluation process followed by them and the grounds for denial of the information sought in point no. 1 of the RTI application, in support of their decision.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes the following:
In pursuance of their oral pleadings, the CPIO submitted additional written submissions on 30.07.2025 and the same are extracted as under:
"There have been a lot of RTIs by candidates to get a copy of their evaluated answer booklets from the NTA in the Recruitment examination for Examiners of Patent and Design, DPIIT. However, the process of paper setting and evaluation is highly confidential and because of the high stakes involved, the identity of the examiners must remain a secret. The recruitment is done to Group A posts and so Page 3 of 8 the process of evaluation and marking has to be strictly confidential. The problems in making public the evaluated answer sheets are as follows: The process of evaluation is not a simple one where an examiner evaluates an answer booklet. Initially, the head examiner evaluates a few random papers and briefs the standard of assessment to all his additional examiners. And, to sustain uniformity in the evaluation, a descriptive answer sheet is evaluated by two independent evaluators who do not have any access to marking of the each other. If the difference of marks is less than 25 percent, the average marks is taken as the final marks of the candidate. However, if the difference is more than 25%, Head examiner re-evaluates the answer sheet and gives the final marks to the candidate. Moreover, the final NTA score mentioned in the scorecard of candidates who appeared for the interview is based on Normalised marks as per Seniority H of Notification for the Recruitment of Examiners of Patent and Design, DPIIT. This procedure is adopted for evaluation of all descriptive papers in various examination (like JEE (Main) Paper 2, SWAYAM, recruitment examinations etc.) conducted by NTA which is a standard norm. Till date, to evaluated descriptive answer sheet is displayed to the candidates due to the following reasons:
1. The evaluated answer sheet contains details of the subject experts which is highly confidential in nature since the examiners' identities being revealed will make them exposed to bribes and threats. NTA currently engages the best subject experts in the field as examiners/evaluators because of the condition of anonymity involved.
2. Since each sheet is evaluated at least twice, the candidates with a difference in marks by two independent evaluators (and a head examiner in certain cases), will contest and try to claim highest marks awarded which will result in many legal complications in future.
3. In every paper, there are raw marks awarded first in each question which can have many corrections in the evaluation process and also there may be corrections because of totaling error, etc. Now, when such an answer sheet is seen by the candidate, he/she might get suspicious about the impartiality of the process, when Page 4 of 8 in reality the process in practiced to ensure uniformity among all the different examiners.
4. The whole process and the board may be subject to undue scrutiny if all candidates view their evaluated papers. The board argues that relative merit is seen and not absolute merit and so viewing an answer sheet in isolation would be misleading.
5. There is also a risk of coaching institutes inducing all their students to get copies of answer sheets and further complicate the matter leading to legal issues,
6. It is possible that examiners can also get copies of the answer booklets they had evaluated. When they come to know that their own evaluation was revised, they may feel resentful. This may cause problems for future evaluation. The Section 8 of the Right to Information Act exempts certain information from being disclosed, it should not be considered to be a fetter on the right to information, but as an equally important provision protecting other public interests essential for the fulfilment and preservation of democratic ideals. The mandate of the Act is strictly adhered to by making sure that the right to information does not conflict with several other public interests (which includes efficient operations of the Governments, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, optimum use of limited fiscal resources etc.). It is further submitted that in many other similar examinations including UPSC, CBSE etc. the evaluated descriptive answer sheets are not displayed to the candidates to avoid to negative implications for the integrity of the examination system. Various judgements which have been passed on similar matters are mentioned below:
1. Civil Appeal No. (s) 6159-6162 of 2013 (UPSC etc. Vs Angesh Kumar & Others etc.) with C.A. No. 5924/2013 (Joint Directors and CPIO and others Vs. T. R. Rajesh) in the Honorable Supreme Court of India
2. W.P.(C) 1619/2017 & CM APPL 7253/2017 (Central Public Information Officer Vs Ajit Kumar) in the Delhi High Court Page 5 of 8
3. Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2010/000332 & 523-SM dated 10.01.2011 (Dr. Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar Vs CPIO & Appellate Authority, Union Public Service Commission). The relevant extracts of the orders are as under: The CIC has already decided the present issue on a similar line of reasoning through its Full Bench in CIC/OK/A/2006/00266/00058/00066/00315 and CIC/WB/A/2006/00469 wherein it was held that:
"38. There are various types of examinations conducted by public authorities which could be either public or limited examinations. Examinations are conducted for various purposes viz. (i) for admission to educational institutions, (ii) for selection and appointment to a public office,
(iii) for promotion to higher classes in educational institutions or in employment etc. There are institutions like UPSC, Staff Selection Commission, CBSE etc., the main function of which is only to conduct examinations. Many public authorities, as those in the present appeals like Jal Board, Railways, Lok Saba Secretariat, DDA, whose main function is not of conducting examinations, do so either to recruit fresh candidates for jobs or for promotion of existing staff. Thus, these public authorities conduct both public as well as departmental examinations.
39. In regard to public examinations conducted by institutions established by the Constitution like UPSC or institutions established by any enactment by the Parliament or Rules made thereunder like CBSE, Staff Selection Commission, Universities., etc, the function of which is mainly to conduct examinations and which have an established system as fool-proof as that can be, and which, by their own rules or regulations prohibit disclosure of evaluated answer sheets or where the disclosure of evaluated answer sheets would result in rendering the system unworkable in practice and on the basis of the rationale followed by the Supreme Court in the above two cases, we would like to put at rest the matter of disclosure of answer sheets. We therefore decide that in such cases, a citizen cannot seek disclosure of the evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act, 2005."Page 6 of 8
The written submissions and pleadings of the respondent are taken on record. The respondent having laid emphasis on the involvement of head examiner and evaluators at two stages of evaluation of the descriptive papers, the Commission cannot have an oversight of their plea that the disclosure of the evaluated papers would risk exposure of an evaluating pattern and thereby the identity of the evaluators. In that regard, the Supreme Court while laying down its verdict in Civil Appeal No. (s) 6159-6162 of 2013 (UPSC etc. Vs Angesh Kumar & Others etc.) with C.A considered the following parameters, highlighted as under:
"....
(vii) Some of the optional papers have very low candidature (sometimes only one), especially the literature papers. Even if all examiners' initials are masked (which too is difficult logistically, as each answer book has several pages, and examiners often record their initials and comments on several pages with revisions/corrections, where done, adding to the size of the problem), the way marks are awarded could itself be a give away in revealing the examiner's identity. If the masking falters at any stage, then the examiner's identity is pitilessly exposed. The 'catchment area' of candidates and examiners in some of these low-candidature papers is known to be limited. Any such possibility of the examiner's identity getting revealed in such a high-stakes examination would have serious implications, both for the integrity and fairness of the examination system and for the security and safety of the examiner. The matter is compounded by the fact that we have publicly stated in different contexts earlier that the paper-setter is also generally the Head Examiner."
In view of the above, the Commission finds the plea taken by the respondent against point no. 1 of the RTI application to be sustainable in the eyes of law. The CPIO gave an appropriate reply for point no.2 and hence no further intervention is called for the same. W.r.t point no.3, the respondent claimed confidentiality vide their reply dated 18.09.2024 and written submission dated 30.07.2025. Upon the Commission's query in Page 7 of 8 another case CIC/NTAGN/A/2024/650584 on whether they have a model answer book for descriptive type of questions, the respondent submitted during the hearing that they don't have any model answer book w.r.t the DPIIT exam in contention in the instant appeal and in view of the same the Commission finds that the CPIO's reply dated 18.09.2024 w.r.t point no.3 is incorrect. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to give a revised reply to the appellant for point no.3 within 15 days of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The Commission further observes that there is considerable delay in providing reply to the instant RTI. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to submit detailed written explanations for not responding to the RTI application of the appellant within stipulated time limit. The written explanation of the CPIO shall be sent to the Commission both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online- link-paper-compliance/add within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Further, the FAA is advised to timely dispose of first appeals in future. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 08.08.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO National Testing Agency, CPIO, RTI Cell, First Floor, NSIC-MDBP Building, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020 2 Abhishek Srivastava Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)