PIO: Appellant sought the information through online portal and it was not possible for them to share the OMR sheet of NEET though online mode; Upon receipt of the second appeal, hard copies were provided - CIC: No scope of intervention in the matter

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.09.2022 seeking information regarding Neet UG2022 Exam bearing roll no. 3003050192 and application no. 220410478812 on the following points:

(i) “Provide scanned copy of OMR office copy.

(ii) Provide scanned copy of OMR original sheet.

(iii) Provide the option for visual inspection for OMR sheet original and office copy.

(iv) Provide the CD of videography recorded during examination center focusing towards my ward dot videography was done after 2 hour of examination at 4 PM.”

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 01.10.2022. The FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.01.2023. Subsequently, they had replied on 05.01.2023 and provided the requisite information to the appellant.

4. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ashok Kumar, CPIO, attended the hearing in-person.

5. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought the information through online portal and it was not possible for them to share the information i.e. OMR sheet though online mode. However, upon receipt of the second appeal wherein he insisted for copies of original OMR sheet of his ward, the CPIO had taken the decision to disclose the information sought in the RTI application. They further stated that the information sought in point no. (iv) of the RTI application i.e. hard disk containing videography recorded during examination center was not available with them.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that appropriate reply and requisite information was provided to the appellant, vide letter dated 05.01.2023. The CPIO brought to the notice of the Commission that the information i.e. original copy of the OMR sheet could not be shared on online mode. Subsequently, the information, as available in material form, was made available to the appellant (in hard copy) on 05.01.2023. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO’s submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Pradeep Kumar v. National Testing Agency, CIC/NTAGN/A/2023/600776; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024