Central Information Commission
Atul Agnihotri vs Csir Hqrs, New Delhi on 3 February, 2026
CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/657027
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/CSIRD/A/2024/657027
Atul Agnihotri ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Council of Scientific
& Industrial Research (M/o. ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Science & Technology), New
Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 10.11.2024 FA : 11.12.2024 SA : Nil.
CPIO : 11.12.2024 FAO : 18.12.2024 Hearing : 29.01.2026
Date of Decision: 30.01.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. What were the specific marking criteria and scoring guidelines provided to evaluators (not candidates) for assessing the descriptive paper? Please provide copies of the marking guidelines or rubrics shared with evaluators.
2. Was there a process in place for moderation or standardization across evaluators to ensure uniformity in scoring? If yes, please provide details of the moderation process, including guidelines and reports on how discrepancies were resolved.Page 1 of 5
CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/657027
3. Did the evaluators receive any instructions or guidelines to apply stricter marking to maintain a particular pass/fail ratio? If so, please provide documentation of any such instructions or internal memos.
4. How were evaluators selected for the descriptive paper, and what training or orientation was provided to them to ensure fair and unbiased assessment?
5. Was any reevaluation or doublechecking process in place for descriptive papers, particularly for candidates who scored close to the qualifying mark or cutoff? If so, please provide details on the criteria for selecting papers for reevaluation and the results of such reevaluation...etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.12.2024 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
Recruitment Cell Reply:- Annexure (A) Copy enclosed. (01 Page) इस कार आपके उपरो RI। आवेदन का िनपटारा िकया जाता है ।
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.12.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.12.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Ms. Vandana Digvijay Singh, DS, Shri Sachin , ASO, Shri Harish Dy. Secy. Shri Anil Kumar, US- participated in the hearing.Page 2 of 5
CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/657027
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provided by the PIO. He averred that he had specifically sought information regarding the marking criteria and guidelines provided to the evaluators for assessing the descriptive paper.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant. Upon a specific query from the Bench whether any marking criteria and scoring guidelines is available in respect in the CSIR CASE2023 recruitment for ASO/SO positions, the PIO averred that the marking scheme is already mentioned in advertisement. A written submission dated 20.01.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..It is kindly submitted that the aforesaid RTI application dated 13.11.2024 was received online in this office and diarised on the CSIR RTI portal vide no CSIRH/R/E/24/00658. Further since the matter was found to be pertaining to Recruitment Cell CSIR-HQ, New Delhi, the said RTI application was forwarded to Recruitment Cell CSIR-HQ by the undersigned (u/s). The Recruitment Cell CSIR HQ replied "Point 1 to This does not fall under the definition of information under clause (f) of section 2 of RTI Act. Also refer DOPT OM No.1/18/2011-IR dated 16.09.2011 endorsed by CSIR vide letter No. 5-1(17)/08-PD dated 10.01.2012."
Further, the Applicant filed first appeal dated 11.12.2024 which was considered by the First Appellate Authority CSIR HQ and was replied to vide FAA CSIR HQ letter dated 18.12.2024, wherein the FAA reiterated the response already furnished by the undersigned.
REPLY TO THE PRESENT SECOND APPEAL: As regards the reply of CSIR HQ in reference to this second appeal, a copy of the reply dated 19.01.2026, as furnished by the Recruitment Cell, CSIR HQ to the u/s, is attached herewith for kind perusal. (Annexure D) Page 3 of 5 CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/657027 Therefore, in view of the factual position brought out as above, your Hon'ble self may kindly see for passing of orders as deemed appropriate..
It is submitted that the end to end work of conduct of both the stages was outsourced to Examination Conducting Agency (ECA) and CSIR was not directly involved for the work of evaluation of answer sheets. The information sought by the applicant either not available or not required to be maintained under any rule. DoPT has issued instructions in light of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India's observation in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011, arising out of SLP [C] No. 7526/2009 in the case of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. According to the instructions the Act does not cast an obligation upon the Public Authority to collect or collate such information where the information is not a part of the record of a public authority and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority.
4.In view of the above the applicant was suitably informed providing reference of the DoPT OM dated 16.09.2011.."
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the main premise of the instant Second Appeal is non-furnishing of information sought with respect to marking criteria and scoring guidelines followed by the Respondent Public Authority in respect in the CSIR CASE2023 recruitment for ASO/SO positions.
8. The Commission observes that, in the interest of transparency and fairness, the marking criteria and scoring guidelines applicable to any recruitment process should be clearly disclosed to the candidates. Such disclosure enables candidates to understand the evaluation methodology and ensures equal treatment of all applicants.Page 4 of 5
CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/657027
9. It is further observed that, during the hearing, the PIO submitted that the marking criteria and scoring guidelines for the CSIR CASE-2023 recruitment for ASO/SO posts had already been duly mentioned in the recruitment advertisement
10. Accordingly, the PIO is directed to examine the RTI Application afresh and furnish a revised reply to the Appellant within four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. A compliance report in this regard be filed with the Commission within a week thereafter. In doing so, the PIO shall ensure that information which is exempted from disclosure should not be disclosed to the Appellant and same be redacted as per section 10 of the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Under Secretary & CPIO, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (M/o.
Science & Technology), Anusandhan Bhawan, 2--Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2 Atul Agnihotri Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)