के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१,मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/NTAGN/A/2024/641682 Amarendra Singh … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: National Testing Agency, New Delhi …ঋितवादीगण/Respondents Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:

 Since the final result of the Vacancy Vide Recruitment Notification 2023 for Recruitment for the Post of Examiner of Patents and Designs in the Patent Office by the All-India Competitive Examination for the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India has been declared by NTA,I would like to ask following questions with respect to this Recruitment:

1. What is the combined minimum marks (cut-off) in Mains Paper-1 and Paper-II for qualifying for Interview stage for the discipline Mechanical Engineering?

2. What is my score in Mains Paper-1 and Paper-II? (My application number is

2307009171 and roll number is DL01001102)

3. My evaluated copy of Mains Paper-II (Descriptive Paper)? (My application number is 2307009171 and roll number is DL01001102)

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 30.07.2024. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.09.2024.

4. The appellant remained absent despite the notice and on behalf of the respondent Dr. Ravish G.K, Assistant Director attended the hearing in person.

5. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the RTI application received at their end on 25.06.2024 was disposed of on 21.09.2024 with the following reply:

“1.The cut off mechanical engineering discipline for qualifying the interview Mechanical Engineering UR 279.5 EWS 263OBC 263.25 SC 236.75 ST 234.5

2.Paper 1-79 Paper 2-145

3. It is informed that the descriptive answer sheets for Mains Paper II were evaluated digitally by two independent experts. If there is a variation of more than 25% in the marks awarded by the two experts, the head examiner is appointed to reevaluate the answer sheet. Providing a descriptive answer sheets including the individual evaluators markings could compromise the confidentiality and integrity of the evaluation process.

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 point no. 3 of the RTI application, in support of their decision.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has given an appropriate reply to the appellant for point no.1 & 2. In pursuance of their oral pleadings, the CPIO submitted additional written submissions on 30.07.2025 and the same are extracted as under:

“There have been a lot of RTIs by candidates to get a copy of their evaluated answer booklets from the NTA in the Recruitment examination for Examiners of Patent and Design, DPIIT. However, the process of paper setting and evaluation is highly confidential and because of the high stakes involved, the identity of the examiners must remai