Authority: Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Securities and Exchange Board of India

Order Date: September 09, 2026

Case Overview

The appellant, Dadhaniya Uttam R, filed an appeal (No. 7039 of 2026) against the response provided by the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai to his RTI application dated July 19, 2026. The appeal was specifically against the responses to query numbers 1, 3, 4, and 5 concerning SEBI's Recruitment of Officer Grade A (Assistant Manager) - 2025.

Query 1 sought the final merit marks (out of 100) obtained by candidates at Ranks 31 to 35 in the Unreserved (UR) category under the General Stream. Queries 3 and 4 sought the category-wise number of selected candidates who had accepted or declined the offer of appointment, respectively. Query 5 sought the Sanctioned Strength, Actual Working Strength, and Total Number of Vacant Posts for the Officer Grade A cadre, stream-wise.

The CPIO's initial response directed the appellant to the SEBI website for query 1, denied information for queries 3 and 4 under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act (disproportionate diversion of resources), and for query 5, provided the overall sanctioned strength of SEBI Officers (Grades A to F) as 1166 and the Persons in Position as on June 30, 2026, as 1026, noting that this includes 135 vacancies notified in the ongoing recruitment.

Final Outcome

The Appellate Authority, Ruchi Chojer, disposed of the appeal with the following rulings:

  • For Query 1: The authority found the CPIO's response inadequate as the provided link required candidate-specific credentials to access the information, which the appellant did not possess. The application was remitted back to the CPIO for de novo consideration and to send an appropriate response to the appellant within 15 working days.
  • For Queries 3 & 4: The authority upheld the CPIO's denial of information under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. It concurred that the information was not readily available and would require analysis and collation, which would disproportionately divert SEBI's resources. This decision was supported by legal precedent from the Delhi High Court and a prior order from the Central Information Commission.
  • For Query 5: The authority found the CPIO's response to be adequate and required no further action. The provided figures for sanctioned strength (1166) and working strength (1026) were deemed sufficient.

The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Topics: RTI Appeal, SEBI Recruitment, Information Denial