Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3192
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, Commissioner
Jitendra Gond – Appellant
Versus
National Testing Agency, New Delhi – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/NTAGN/A/2024/650723
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [Not listed]
For the Respondents: Dr. Ravish G.K
The confidentiality of evaluation processes under the RTI Act must be preserved to ensure integrity in high-stakes examinations.
Headnote:The Right to Information Act provides citizens the right to access information held by public authorities. In this case, the appellant sought access to evaluated answer sheets of an examination. The Commission upheld the CPIO's denial based on confidentiality grounds necessary for the integrity of the examination process. The issues involved included the balancing of public interest against confidentiality provisions of the RTI Act. The final decision stated that the appeal is disposed of while directing the CPIO to provide an explanation for not adhering to stipulated response timelines.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rti application details and responses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against disclosure. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's review and reasoning. (Para 8) |
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Please provide a certified copy of the checked /evaluated answer sheet of the DPIIT CGPDTM Recruitment Mains Examination Paper II (Mechanical Engineering) held on 25/01/2024 of the candidate with following details
Roll Number -MR16002375
Application number -2307003150
Name -Jitendra Gond
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
“Regarding providing the descriptive answer copy of Mains Paper II, it is to inform you that the NTA is unable to provide a copy of the descriptive answer booklet as requested.
The evaluation process for descriptive answer booklets involves multiple levels of scrutiny to ensure fairness and accuracy. Specifically, each answer booklet is evaluated independently by two different evaluators. If the marks awarded by both evaluators differ by more than 25%, the answer booklet is re-evaluated by a Head Evaluator. If the discrepancy in the marks is less than 25%, the average of the marks given by both evaluators is awarded to the candidate.
Providing a descriptive answer booklet could compromise the confidentiality and integrity of the evaluation process. As per the NTA policy and guidelines, the evaluation process details, including the individual evaluators markings, are confidential and cannot be disclosed.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.11.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 13.11.2024 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.
5. The appellant appeared through VC and on behalf of the respondent Dr. Ravish G.K, Assistant Director attended the hearing in person.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he has asked for copy of the answer sheets written by him and the CPIO has not provided the same. The appellant sought directions on the respondent for providing the information sought by him.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the RTI application received at their end on 17.06.2024 was disposed of on 25.09.2024 with the following reply:
“Regarding providing the descriptive answer copy of Mains Paper II, it is to inform you that the NTA is unable to provide a copy of the descriptive answer booklet as requested.
The evaluation process for descriptive answer booklets involves multiple levels of scrutiny to ensure fairness and accuracy. Specifically, each answer booklet is evaluated independently by two different evaluators. If the marks awarded by both evaluators differ by more than 25%, the answer booklet is re-evaluated by a Head Evaluator. If the discrepancy in the marks is less than 25%, the average of the marks given by both evaluators is awarded to the candidate.
Providing a descriptive answer booklet could compromise the confidentiality and integrity of the evaluation process. As per the NTA policy and guidelines, the evaluation process details, including the individual evaluators markings, are confidential and cannot be disclosed.”
On being queried, the respondent elaborated on their evaluation process involving two stages, wherein papers were digitally evaluated by two independent experts and in case of a variation of more than 25 percentage in the marks awarded by the two experts, the head examiner is appointed to re-evaluate the answer sheet. Further, the CPIO requested the Commission to allow them to submit additional submissions regarding the evaluation process followed by them and the grounds for denial of the information sought in the RTI application, in support of their decision.
8. The Commission after adve
