Central Information Commission
Snigdha Kuri vs National Testing Agency on 29 April, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NTAGN/A/2023/602443
Snigdha Kuri ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
National Testing Agency, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 16.09.2022 FA : 06.11.2022 SA : 13.01.2023
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record Hearing : 25.04.2024
Date of Decision: 26.04.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "I am Snigdha Kuri who appeared in CUET (UG) 2022 Exam held recently. My application No. is 223510137604 and Roll No. is DL01229713. Kindly provide the following information
1. The record/document showing raw scores obtained by me in subjects I appeared for in CUET (UG) 2022 exam.
2. The record/calculation sheet/document showing calculation of normalised marks obtained by me.Page 1 of 3
3. The record/calculation sheet/document showing calculation of percentile score obtained by me.
4. The record/document indicating the final answer key for the subjects I appeared for in the above exam.
5. The record/document showing the status/disposal of answer key challenge in respect of Question ID: 6825815 of Biology Subject Paper held in Slot 1 on 18th August, 2022."
2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.11.2022. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 13.01.2023. Subsequently, the CPIO replied on 10.06.2023 that the information sought was not available in the form desired.
4. The appellant's father and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ahok Kumar, CPIO, attended the hearing in-person.
5. The appellant's representative (father) inter alia submitted that the CPIO handed over the calculation sheet as well as scores secured by the appellant vide letter dated 23.04.2024 and he acknowledged the receipt of the same.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had not prepared the scores and calculation sheets individually for each candidate, since they were engaged in examination duties. The CPIO further explained that they could not respond to the RTI application in 2022 since they had not received the application during that period.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent replied on 10.06.2023. However, during the course of hearing, the CPIO submitted that they had prepared the score sheet in accordance with the RTI request and the same was handed over to the appellant during the hearing, vide letter dated 23.04.2024. The appellant acknowledged Page 2 of 3 receipt of the information, before the Commission. That being so, the Commission finds no ground for further intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 26.04.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO National Testing Agency, Assistant Director & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, First Floor, NSIC-MDBP Building, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020
2. Snigdha Kuri Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)