Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rakesh Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 20 April, 2026

                                  केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/UPSCM/C/2025/605314

Rakesh Kumar                                             ...निकायतकताग /Complainant

                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम

CPIO: Union Public Service
Commission, New Delhi                                    ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:

RTI : 09.01.2025             FA   : Not on record            Complaint : Nil

CPIO : 21.01.2025            FAO : Not on record             Hearing   : 06.04.2026


Date of Decision: 20.04.2026
                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.01.2025 seeking information on the following points:

➢ Subject - RTI to know the status of Assistant programmer CBI (ADVERTISEMENT No.12/2024) My name is Rakesh Kumar from Bokaro Steel City, Jharkhand. I had applied for CBI Assistant Programmer (Vacancy No. 24111201609) in November 2024. I have many queries related this recruitment so kindly provide some information under RTI Act 2005 below.

1. Number of SC category Candidates applied for the post.

2. Whether there is chance for written test or not?

3. If written test will happen then how many months will provide to candidates for preparation?

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.01.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"Point No.1 & 2: The recruitment test is under process, hence the information sought by you cannot be provided at this stage.

Point No.3: The query does not constitute information within the ambit of Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005."

3. Aggrieved with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated Nil. Hearing Proceedings & Decision:

4. The Complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent K. Thomas Maring, CPIO, attended the hearing in-person.

5. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had furnished revised information vide their latest written submissions filed on 30.03.2026, which are taken on record and are reproduced as under:

"Submissions of CPIO:

In this connection, it is stated that the information desired by the applicant Sh. Rakesh Kumar regarding point number 1 was not available with the CPIO at that time and hence was not provided. The information has now been made available and is as follows: The total number of SC candidates that applied for the post of Asst Programmer are 2003, including 22 PwBD candidates. Information with regards to Point 2&3 cannot be provided as it is hypothetical information which is exempted as per section 2(f) of RTI act, 2005."

CIC/UPSCM/C/2025/605314 Page 2 of 4

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the respondent has furnished requisite information on point no. 1 of the RTI application and pleaded that the remaining information is not as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, in their latest reply dated 30.03.2026. The said reply, is found appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act and a copy of the same has been duly marked to the complainant. However, the CPIO's initial response is found inaccurate, since the denial of information was premised on the ground that averred matter was under process instead of relying upon applicable exemption clauses under the RTI Act, if any. Accordingly, the respondent is counselled to give a factual response, subject to availability of records, in future.

Further, adequate response having been furnished to the complainant and in absence of any mala fide intention causing obstruction of information at the end of CPIO, no further action is warranted in the matter. Accordingly, the complaint is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 20.04.2026 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 CIC/UPSCM/C/2025/605314 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Union Public Service Commission, RTI Cell, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi - 110069

2. Rakesh Kumar CIC/UPSCM/C/2025/605314 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)