के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई निल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/NTAGN/A/2025/602110 DEEPAK .….अपीलक VERSUS बनाम CPIO, NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY, RTI CELL, FIRST FLOOR, NSIC-MDBP BUILDING, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110020 ….प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026 Date of Decision : 11.02.2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 05.10.2024 CPIO replied on : N.A.

First appeal filed on : 07.11.2024 First Appellate Authority’s order : 23.12.2024

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : N.A.

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.10.2024 seeking the following information:-

“I earnestly request for supply of the following information in respect of my roll No. PCH01010104 for descriptive paper held on 14.03.2024 for the post of Section Officer for Central Universities Recruitment Exam (CURE) in the available form under RTI Act, 2005:

(a) Question paper issued to me (b) Duly checked answer sheets with marks awarded to each answer to my paper (c) document containing total marks obtained out of maximum marks by my paper Besides above following information is also requested:-

(d) List of roll numbers of candidates who appeared for the post of Section Officer on above given date for EFLU (e) Documents containing information based upon which the result for the post of Section Officer at EFLU was updated.”

2. Having not received the reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.11.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 23.12.2024, “(a). Attached.

(b). May not be provided under Clause 8(1) of RTI Act 2025.

(c). Stage II total marks scored by the candidate is 41.5. Document/evaluated answer sheet may not be provided under Clause

8(1) of RTI Act 2025.

(d) May not be provided under Clause 8(1) of RTI Act 2025.

(e). Attached.”

3. Challenging the FAA’s order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant second Appeal for denial of his request for information against point No. (b), (c) and (d) of RTI Application.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sharma, Dy. Director/CPIO present in person.

4. Appellant remained absent during hearing despite service.

5. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.

6. CPIO explained that on point Nos. (b), (c) and (d) of RTI application, the Appellant basically sought his evaluated marks along answer sheet of his descriptive paper held on 14.03.2024 under subject recruitment. CPIO averred that the score of the Appellant was informed to him, however, the evaluated answer sheet could not be provided to the Appellant as it contains the details and identifying particulars of various experts who evaluated the papers at their level. Disclosure of such confidential information would have serious implications both for the integrity and fairness of the examination system and for the security and safety of the examiner. Therefore, the evaluated answer sheet of descriptive exam was denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(e)

and Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

7. On the oral suggestion of the Commission, CPIO agreed to provide a revised updated reply substantiating the denial of request regarding evaluated answer sheet for descriptive exams, to the Appellant. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UPSC v. Angesh Kumar & Others (Civil Appeal No. (s) 6159-6162 of 2013) wherein it was held that:

“…(8) The problems in showing evaluated answer sheets in the UPSC Civil Services Examination are recorded in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC . From the counter affidavit in the said case, following extract was referred to :

“(B) Problems in showing evaluated answer books to candidates.—(i) Final awards subsume earlier stages of evaluation. Disclosing answer books would reveal intermediate stages too,