Authority: Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, Securities and Exchange Board of India

Order Date: August 13, 2026

Case Overview

The appellant, Anivesh Kumar Pandey, filed an appeal (No. 6983 of 2026) against the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of SEBI, Mumbai. The appeal contested the response to an RTI application dated June 23, 2026, concerning the SEBI Grade A 2025 recruitment drive. The appellant sought detailed information on a specific candidate (Roll No. 1921000964), including individual marks for Phase II Paper 1, Paper 2, and the Personal Interview; their final aggregate weighted score; their status on the waiting list; and the category-wise minimum cut-off marks. The appellant also requested a compiled, anonymized marksheet for the top 100 selected candidates and information on previous employers of EWS candidates.

The CPIO's response, dated July 16, 2026, stated that information for queries 1, 2, 3, and 5 was already published on SEBI's website and provided links. For query 4 (compiled marksheet) and query 6 (EWS employer details), the CPIO stated the information was not maintained in the desired format, though a link to marks of 135 selected candidates was provided for query 4.

The appellant's ground for appeal was that the provided information was incomplete, misleading, or false.

The Appellate Authority, perusing the record, found no deficiency in the CPIO's response. For queries 1, 2, 3, and 5, it cited judgments from the Delhi High Court (Registrar of Companies & ors. Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & anr.) and the Central Information Commission (Shri K Lall vs. Shri M K Bagri), which established that information available in the public domain is not considered 'held' by the public authority, thus creating no obligation to provide it under the RTI Act. For queries 4 and 6, the authority cited the Hon'ble CIC's order in Prateek Tewari v. CPIO, SEBI, which states that a CPIO cannot be directed to provide information in a specific format if it is not already maintained as such.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no reason to interfere with the decision of the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai.

Topics: RTI Act, Recruitment Process