Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 6805
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
Shubham Sharma – Appellant
Versus
National Testing Agency – Respondent
CIC/NTAGN/A/2023/656104
The Right to Information Act mandates transparency, but information accessibility can be limited by ongoing recruitment processes and regulations set by the recruiting authority.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 6 and 19 - RTI application filed by a student dissatisfied with EPFO SSA exam results seeking answer key and cutoff information - CPIO's response deemed insufficient, leading to First Appeal - FAA upheld CPIO's response citing ongoing recruitment process - Second Appeal dismissed by Commission as appropriate replies were provided. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Transparency in Examination Process - The principle of transparency in public examinations mandates the provision of relevant information to candidates, but is subject to the ongoing processes and regulations set by the recruiting authority. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant, dissatisfied with his EPFO SSA exam result, filed an RTI application for his answer key and cutoff details, claiming non-accessibility during a specified period. The CPIO stated the information was not readily available, and the FAA upheld this, leading to a Second Appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found the Respondent had provided appropriate information and no further intervention was necessary.
Issues: The main issues included whether the information sought was accessible and if the Respondent's replies were adequate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the information provided by the Respondent was sufficient and aligned with the recruitment process regulations, dismissing the appeal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:
I am one of the student appeared for EPFO SSA exam 2023 with Application Number 234510267443. I am dissatisfied with my result showing not qualified for stage 2. The main reason for my dissatisfaction is that my Answer Key not available online during 1st September to 3rd September. For this purpose, I am filing an RTI so please provide me following information.
(i) My Answer Key and marks after normalization?
(ii) Cutoff and sectional cutoff (if there was any)?
(iii) Notification para under which sectional cutoff is mentioned?
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
(i) to (iii) Information sought is not readily available. You are advised to keep visiting the official websites of NTA recruitment.nta.nic.in for the latest updates.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 09.12.2023 observed as under:-
“Since the recruitment process for the mentioned post is not yet completed, the information sought could not be shared at this stage. You are advised to visit the official website of NTA recruitment.nta.nic.in for the latest updates.”
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.12.2023.
5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Ankur Verma, Sr. Superintendent attended the hearing in Person.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was a participant in the EPFO SSA Exam 2023 where he was marked as not qualified for stage 2. He claimed that his answer key was not visible to him during the specified period of (1st to 3rd September 2023), whereas it was visible in case of other students. Therefore, through this RTI Application he had sought access to his answer key and other details. He alleged that he tried to connect with the customer care at the time of non-accessibility of the answer key during that period, but his queries remained unanswered.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the NTA conducts the examination as per the rules, norms, eligibility criteria, educational qualification, qualifying criteria etc. fixed by the recruiting department. NTA has no role in deciding such criteria. As per the qualifying criteria, set by the recruiting department, NTA had processed the result. The candidate’s not qualifying for Stage-II is only dependent upon the performance of the candidate and the minimum qualifying criteria set by the recruiting department.
Vide Public Notice dated 01.09.2023, all the candidates were given an opportunity to view their response, question paper and the answer key and to submit their challenge to the answer key, if any. The appellant’s claim that his answer key during 1st to 3rd September 2023 was not visible is false and baseless and this window was opened for all appeared candidates and during that period 381 candidates had submitted the challenges against the answer key by viewing their Question Paper, Response and Answer Key. However, they have now provided the requisite link to the Appellant vide their recent written submissions dated 06.12.2024. The same has been sent to the Appellant on his registered email id(Email:dragod1618@gmail.com ). The written submissions are taken on record by the Commission.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that an appropriate reply has been provided by the Respondent. Therefore, no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
