Central Information Commission
Sanjeev Kumar Yadav 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/2024/650584
Sanjeev Kumar Yadav ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
National Testing Agency, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 30.08.2024 FA : 30.09.2024 SA : Nil
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record 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 30.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
This is regarding CGPTDM DPIIT Exam conducted by NTA, I would like to get these information under RTI act 2005: Application No: 2307046779 Roll No: UK01000593
1) My evaluated copy of paper 1 and paper 2 (Subjective exam) in soft copy.
2) My score in both paper 1 and paper 2 for mains examination held on 25 Jan 2024?
3) Cutoff marks with category wise (UR/OBC/EWS/SC/ST etc.) for each discipline, who has selected for interview?Page 1 of 8
4) Paper 1 and Paper 2 highest, lowest marks with category wise (UR/OBC/EWS/SC/ST etc.) for each discipline on 25 Jan 2024, who has selected for interview?
5) Paper 1 and Paper 2 highest and lowest marks with category wise (UR/OBC/EWS/SC/ST etc.) for each discipline on 5 Feb 2024, who has selected for interview?
..., etc./ other related information
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.09.2024. The FAA's order, if any, is not on record of the Commission.
3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
4. The appellant remained absent despite the notice and on behalf of the respondent Dr. Ravish G.K, Assistant Director attended the hearing in person.
5. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the RTI application received at their end on 30.08.2024 was disposed of on 02.11.2024. 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.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent 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:Page 2 of 8
"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 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 Page 3 of 8 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 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:Page 4 of 8
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
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 Page 5 of 8 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."
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."
Page 6 of 8In 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 reply in Written Submission dated 30.07.2025 w.r.t point no. 2,3,6,7,8,9,10 are found to be appropriate and hence no intervention is required in this regard. However, the reply w.r.t point no. 4,5 is found to be incorrect as the appellant had asked numerical values of highest and lowest marks and there is no third party information involved in giving numbers/numerical values. Also, the reply of the respondent w.r.t point no.11 is found to be incorrect as the appellant sought information on model solution and on contrary the respondent replied on question paper. Further, upon the Commission's query during the hearing 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 respondent's written submission dated 18.07.2025 & 30.07.2025 w.r.t point no.11 is incorrect. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to give a revised reply to the appellant for point no. 4,5,11 incorporating the sought information within 15 days of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. Apart from the above, the Commission finds that the CPIO did not reply to the appellant within stipulated time limit as per RTI Act and the CPIO's reply dated 02.11.2024 as stated by the respondent in written submission dated 30.07.2025 is not on record. In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to submit the aforesaid reply dated 02.11.2024 with record of proof of service on the appellant and submit detailed written explanations for not responding to the RTI application of the appellant within stipulated time limit both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online- link-paper-compliance/add within 15 days of 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 Page 7 of 8 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. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)