Central Information Commission
Deepak vs National Testing Agency on 12 February, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NTAGN/A/2025/602110
DEEPAK .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY,
RTI CELL, FIRST FLOOR,
NSIC-MDBP BUILDING, OKHLA
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110020 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026
Date of Decision : 11.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.10.2024
CPIO replied on : N.A.
First appeal filed on : 07.11.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 23.12.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : N.A.
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.10.2024 seeking the following information:-
"I earnestly request for supply of the following information in respect of my roll No. PCH01010104 for descriptive paper held on 14.03.2024 for the post of Section Officer for Central Universities Recruitment Exam (CURE) in the available form under RTI Act, 2005:Page 1 of 6
(a) Question paper issued to me
(b) Duly checked answer sheets with marks awarded to each answer to my paper
(c) document containing total marks obtained out of maximum marks by my paper Besides above following information is also requested:-
(d) List of roll numbers of candidates who appeared for the post of Section Officer on above given date for EFLU
(e) Documents containing information based upon which the result for the post of Section Officer at EFLU was updated."
2. Having not received the reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.11.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 23.12.2024, "(a). Attached.
(b). May not be provided under Clause 8(1) of RTI Act 2025.
(c). Stage II total marks scored by the candidate is 41.5. Document/evaluated answer sheet may not be provided under Clause 8(1) of RTI Act 2025.
(d) May not be provided under Clause 8(1) of RTI Act 2025.
(e). Attached."
3. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant second Appeal for denial of his request for information against point No. (b), (c) and (d) of RTI Application.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sharma, Dy. Director/CPIO present in person.
4. Appellant remained absent during hearing despite service.
5. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
6. CPIO explained that on point Nos. (b), (c) and (d) of RTI application, the Appellant basically sought his evaluated marks along answer sheet of his descriptive paper held on 14.03.2024 under subject recruitment. CPIO averred Page 2 of 6 that the score of the Appellant was informed to him, however, the evaluated answer sheet could not be provided to the Appellant as it contains the details and identifying particulars of various experts who evaluated the papers at their level. Disclosure of such confidential information would have serious implications both for the integrity and fairness of the examination system and for the security and safety of the examiner. Therefore, the evaluated answer sheet of descriptive exam was denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(e) and Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
7. On the oral suggestion of the Commission, CPIO agreed to provide a revised updated reply substantiating the denial of request regarding evaluated answer sheet for descriptive exams, to the Appellant. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UPSC v. Angesh Kumar & Others (Civil Appeal No. (s) 6159-6162 of 2013) wherein it was held that:
"...(8) The problems in showing evaluated answer sheets in the UPSC Civil Services Examination are recorded in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC . From the counter affidavit in the said case, following extract was referred to :
"(B) Problems in showing evaluated answer books to candidates.--(i) Final awards subsume earlier stages of evaluation. Disclosing answer books would reveal intermediate stages too, including the so-called 'raw marks' which would have negative implications for the integrity of the examination system, as detailed in Section (C) below.
(ii) The evaluation process involves several stages. Awards assigned initially by an examiner can be struck out and revised due to (a) totalling mistakes, portions unevaluated, extra attempts (beyond prescribed number) being later corrected as a result of clerical scrutiny, (b) The examiner changing his own awards during the course of evaluation either because he/she marked it differently initially due to an inadvertent error or because he/she corrected himself/herself to be more in conformity with the accepted standards, after discussion with Head Examiner/colleague examiners, (c) Initial awards of the Additional Examiner being revised by the Head Examiner during the latter's check of the former's work, (d) the Additional Examiner's work having been found erratic by the Head Examiner, been rechecked entirely by another examiner, with or without the Head 1 (2013) 12 SCC 489 7 Examiner again rechecking this work.
(iii) The corrections made in the answer book would likely arouse doubt and perhaps even suspicion in the candidate's mind. Where such corrections lead to a lowering of earlier awards, this would not only breed representations/grievances, Page 3 of 6 but would likely lead to litigation. In the only evaluated answer book that has so far been shown to a candidate (Shri Gaurav Gupta in WP No. 3683 of 2012 in Gaurav Gupta v. UPSC dated 6.7.2012(Del.)) on the orders of the High Court, Delhi and that too, with the marks assigned masked; the candidate has nevertheless filed a fresh WP alleging improper evaluation.
(iv) As relative merit and not absolute merit is the criterion here (unlike academic examinations), a feeling of the initial marks/revision made being considered harsh when looking at the particular answer script in isolation could arise without appreciating that similar standards have been applied to all others in the field.
Non-appreciation of this would lead to erosion of faith and credibility in the system and challenges to the integrity of the system, including through litigation.
(v) With the disclosure of evaluated answer books, the danger of coaching institutes collecting copies of these from candidates (after perhaps encouraging/inducing them to apply for copies of their answer books under the RTI Act) is real, with all its attendant implications.
(vi) With disclosure of answer books to candidates, it is likely that at least some of the relevant examiners also get access to these. Their possible resentment at their initial awards (that they would probably recognise from the fictitious code numbers and/or their markings, especially for low-candidature subjects) having been superseded (either due to inter-examiner or inter-subject moderation) would lead to bad blood between Additional Examiners and the Head Examiner on the one hand, and between examiners and the Commission, on the other hand. The free and frank manner in which Head Examiners, for instance, review the work of their colleague Additional Examiners, would likely be impacted. Quality of assessment standards would suffer.
(vii) Some of the optional papers have very low candidature (sometimes only one), especially the 8 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 Page 4 of 6 compounded by the fact that we have publicly stated in different contexts earlier that the paper-setter is also generally the Head Examiner.
(viii) UPSC is now able to get some of the best teachers and scholars in the country to be associated in its evaluation work. An important reason for this is no doubt the assurance of their anonymity, for which the Commission goes to great lengths. Once disclosure of answer books starts and the inevitable challenges (including litigation) from disappointed candidates starts, it is only a matter of time before these examiners who would be called upon to explain their assessment/award, decline to accept further assignments from the Commission. A resultant corollary would be that examiners who then accept this assignment would be sorely tempted to play safe in their marking, neither awarding outstanding marks nor very low marks, even where these are deserved. Mediocrity would reign supreme and not only the prestige, but the very integrity of the system would be compromised markedly."
xxx (10) Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters. (11) In view of the above, the impugned order(s) is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners are dismissed. This order will not debar the respondents from making out a case on above 10 parameters and approach the appropriate forum, if so advised."
Decision:
8. Considering the submissions of the parties and upon perusal of facts on record, the Commission observes that the core contentions of the Appellant in the instant Appeal was denial of request by the CPIO regarding answer sheet of descriptive exam under Section 8 (1)(e) and Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. On the other hand, the CPIO explained denial of request on the ground Page 5 of 6 that answer sheet of descriptive exam is evaluated by various experts on their level and disclosure of marks given by the experts at raw level which has not been finalized would have serious implications at the level of fairness and integrity of the examination system. CPIO also apprised the Bench that disclosure of answer sheet of descriptive exams also invade the privacy of the examiners which is reflected on the answer sheet of the candidates. Hence, the request of disclosure of answer sheet was denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(e) and Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
9. The Commission upholds the stand taken by the CPIO in denial of answer sheet of descriptive exam to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(e) and Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore the Commission deems it fit to direct the CPIO to provide a revised categorical reply explaining in detail the reason for denial of request for disclosure of evaluated answer sheet of Appellant. The revised reply shall be provided to the Appellant, free of cost, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri DEEPAK Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)