Central Information Commission
Miss.Komalagrawal vs High Court on 24 December, 2010
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/WB/C/2010/900251AD
Date of Hearing : December 24, 2010
Date of Decision : December 24, 2010
Parties:
Applicant
Ms.Komal Agrawal
D/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal
MIG 22 SFS
BARRA 4
Kanpur 208 027
The Applicant was not present for the hearing
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
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/WB/C/2010/900251AD
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.16.3.10 with the PIO, NSSO seeking the evaluation procedure of CAT 2009 conducted by prometric as also a copy of her answer sheet . She also sought NSSO forwarded the query to Ministry of HRD, New Delhi who in turn transferred the same to Prof. Pankaj Chandra, IIM, Bangalore on 31.3.10.
2. Shri A.R.Ramesh, PIO, IIM Bangalore vide his letter dt.13.4.10 informed the Applicant that the information sought is not available and that the application has been transferred to CAT Centre located at IIM Ahmedabad. Prof. Satish Deodhar, Convenor, CAT2009 replied on 20.4.10 :
'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.' In response to his email, the Applicant got 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.'
3. Being aggrieved with the reply, Applicant filed a complaint dt.3.4.10 before CIC.
4. The Commission received a rejoinder dt.15.12.10 from Shri J.Albert Xavier, PIO enclosing the following comments provided by Prof.Satish Y. Deodhar.
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 paperpencil 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.
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. It is precisely for this reason that in a multiform computerized tests such as GRE, GMAT, TOEFL and now CAT, nothing more than the scores and percentiles are disclosed to candidates
d) In continuation of the above context, we also opine that u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act such information is exempt from disclosure. Moreover, the information sought may be of interest to some petitioners 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.
Further, as per Section 9 of RTI Act, Prometric is not a state/public institution and RTI is not applicable to such institutions.
e) 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 Ms.Agrawal. 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.
Decision
5. The Commission after hearing the Respondent and also on perusal of submissions on record is of the opinion that the evaluation procedure through prometric has bee furnished to the Complainant by the Public Authority including scaled scores and percentiles. As for the copy of the answer sheet which the Complainant has sought, the Commission denies the information to 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 .
6. The complaint is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Ms.Komal Agrawal D/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal MIG 22 SFS BARRA 4 Kanpur 208 027
2. The Public Information Officer Indian Institute of Management Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015
3. Officer Incharge, NIC