Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Anshu vs National Testing Agency on 15 May, 2026

                             केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/NTAGN/A/2025/622719

ANSHU                                                   .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                        बनाम
The CPIO
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY,
RTI CELL, 1st FLOOR, NSIC-MDBP BUILDING,
OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110020                                      ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    13.05.2026
Date of Decision                    :    13.05.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Sudha Rani Relangi

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on            :    20.03.2025
CPIO replied on                     :    NA
First appeal filed on               :    21.04.2025
First Appellate Authority's order   :    14.05.2025
2nd Appeal dated                    :    17.05.2025

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.03.2025 seeking the following information:

"please provide information regarding ugc net December 2024 subject law(058) examination.

1.Please provide data of Category wise total number of student appeared in ugc net December 2024 in subject law(058) examination.

2. for Obc(NCL) no of qualified jrf 30.Ews no of qualified 19 same for assistant professor obc (NCL) no of qualified 340 And for ews 163. For ews reservation is 10% and for obc reservation is 27%.in simple mathematical calculation if 10% value is 19 then 27% value is approx 51 but instead of 51 only 30 candidate where qualified .same it is for assistant professor.

my question is according to ugc net December 2024 law subject. Please provide category wise actual mathematical data on which subject law (058) result prepared."

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.04.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 14.05.2025 held as under-

"Answer 1 is 19797.

rest is not provided under section 8(1) of RTI Act 2005"

3. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Dr. Sharmila Devi, Jt. Director-cum-CPIO along with Ms. Vishakha, Jr. Consultant present in person.

4. Written statement dated 12.05.2026 filed by the CPIO is taken on record.

5. CPIO stated that a reply has been provided to the Appellant initially. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, the CPIO revisited that contents of RTI application and provided a revised reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 12.05.2026 informing that -

"...Furthermore, the category-wise data for Subject Law (058) appeared in UGC-NET Dec 2024 are as under:

Gen- 1679, Gen EWS- 751 OBC(NCL)-1329 SC-662 ST-230. Regarding mathematical data for subject Law result prepared, in this connection, kindly refer Chapter 6(Key challenges and Result) under clause 6.3 of pages 33 to 35 of Information Bulletin UGC-NET Dec 2024.

Yes, as reservation policy, strictly followed as per the Government of India policy and as notified in Chapter 4 (Reservations) under clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin for UGC-NET December 2024."

6. Appellant did not turn up for hearing despite service. Therefore, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, the Bench tried to connect the Appellant through audio conference mode, however, there is no response from the Appellant's side. The Commission instead of prolong the matter further, deems it fit to decide this Appeal on merits. Decision:

7. Heard the Respondent.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts of this Appeal, and perusal of the records observes that as far as RTI Application in question is concerned, it was suitably replied to the Appellant now vide written statement of the CPIO covering all the aspect regarding category wise data of the subject law and other related information. Further, the written statement filed by the CPIO is comprehensive and self-explanatory which adequately addressed the contentions raised by the Appellant in the instant Second Appeal as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

9. Moreover, due to the non-appearance of the Appellant during hearing to plead his case or to controvert the version of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope to intervene in the matter, at this juncture.

The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लग ं ी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणर्सत्यापपर्प्रनर्) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Page 3 of 4 Shri/Ms. ANSHU Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)