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/2024/642899 Abhishek Srivastava … 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 17.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:

 I was a candidate for the post of EXAMINER OF PATENTS & DESIGNS recruitment, 2023 conducted by National Testing Agency on behalf of Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade. I cleared Preliminary Exam conducted on 21st December 2023, also successfully cleared Mains examination for the same and given Interview on 5th April 2024 for the same. My details are as follows, Name: Abhishek Srivastava, Registration No. - 2307007339, Roll No.- UP09001397. As per RTI Act 2005 (as amended), I seek following information regarding Paper-2 (descriptive) of the mains examination given by me, 1. Scanned Copy of all 40 pages of Answer sheet with marks given to me for each question and sub-parts thereof

2. A copy of Mains Question Paper (Paper-2)

3. Model Solution on which basis copy is evaluated.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

1. It is informed that the descriptive answer sheets for Mains Paper 2 were evaluated digitally by two independent experts. If there is a variation of more than 25 percentage 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.

2. It is informed that the recruitment process is still ongoing. The question paper will be displayed after completion of the process.

3. The information sought by you is confidential in nature.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.09.2024 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 Video Conference and on behalf of the respondent Dr. Ravish G.K, Assistant Director attended the hearing in person.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had failed to respond to his RTI application within stipulated time limit. He further stated that the CPIO replied on

18.09.2024 but has not provided 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 18.09.2024 with the following reply:

“1. It is informed that the descriptive answer sheets for Mains Paper 2 were evaluated digitally by two independent experts. If there is a variation of more than 25 percentage 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.

2. It is informed that the recruitment process is still ongoing. The question paper will be displayed after completion of the process.

3. The information sought by you is confidential in nature.”

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 ma