Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Atul Agnihotri vs Csir Hqrs, New Delhi on 4 February, 2026

                                                      CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/650364

                                     के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                              Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/650364

Atul Agnihotri                                                ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम
CPIO: Council of Scientific
& Industrial Research (M/o.                               ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Science & Technology), New
Delhi

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 03.10.2024               FA     : 03.11.2024            SA     : Nil.

CPIO :      Not on record      FAO : 12.11.2024               Hearing : 29.01.2026


Date of Decision: 30.01.2026
                                         CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                      Shri P R Ramesh
                                        ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.10.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. Kindly provide a copy of my checked descriptive copy of csir case 2024 conducted on 7th July 2024. (application number: 10001749, name: atul agnihotri)

2. Was any candidate eliminated for the reason of using ufm (unfair means)?

3. Give the breakup of shortlisted candidates based on their language medium.

CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/650364

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.11.2024 .

3. PIO has furnished reply dated 07.11.2024 as under:

1. Point 1: Reference is invited to clause 9.2 (r) of advertisement no. E-

1/RC/2023/1 related to 'General terms & conditions' for CASE-2023 which interalia stipulated that "all the subsequent information/ notification/corrigendum / addendum regarding this recruitment drive will be hosted on the csir website only Hence, applicants are requested to follow the csir website i.e. https://www.csir.res.in for updates". Further reference is also invited to clause 9.2 (t) of the same advertisement which clearly states that "no interim enquiry or correspondence will be entertained" More shareable information related to this recruitment process will be placed in public domain in due course of time.

2. Point 2: As per available records, no information in this regard, is available.

3. Point 3: No such information is available as information is not maintained in the format requested by the applicant, being not required under the rules. The information in the format available has already been put in public domain i.e. website of CSIR (https://www.csir.res.in/case- career-opportunities/recruitment

4. The FAA vide order dated 12.11.2024 observed as under:-

"This has reference to your RTI Appeal No.CSIRH/A/E/24/00101 dated 03/11/2024. Your appeal has been examined by me. The information received from the CSIR-Recruitment Cell is enclosed for your information (copy attached). Thus, your appeal application is disposed of."

5. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/650364 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present through audio-conference.

Respondent: Ms. Vandana Digvijay Singh, DS, Shri Sachin , ASO, Shri Harish Dy. Secy. Shri Anil Kumar, US- participated in the hearing.

6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He averred that he had sought copy of his own answer sheet and same has not been disclosed by the PIO. Further the breakup of shortlisted candidates based on their language medium has not been provided.

7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information as sought has been duly provided to the Appellant. As regards point No. 1 of the RTI Application the CPIO stated that the issue has been already decided by the Apex Court in CA. No. 6159-6162/2013, titled as UPSC vs Angesh Kumar, dated 20.02.2018 and also decision of CIC in Second Appeal No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2023/647930 titled as Hemant Singh vs UPSC, dated 02.01.2025. They further stated that the breakup of shortlisted candidates based on their language medium is not maintained in their records. A written submission dated 20.01.2026 has been received from CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:

"..It is kindly submitted that the aforesaid RTI application dated 03.10.2024 was received online in this office and diarised on the CSIR RTI portal vide no CSIRH/R/E/24/00491. Further since the matter was found to be pertaining to Recruitment Cell CSIR-HQ, New Delhi, the said RTI application was forwarded to Recruitment Cell CSIR-HQ by the undersigned (u/s). The Recruitment Cell CSIR HQ replied "As per clause 9.2 (r) of advertisement no. E-1/RC/2023/1, all notifications, corrigenda, and addenda related to the CASE-2023 recruitment are to be hosted only on the CSIR website (https://www.csir.res.in), and clause 9.2 (t) further specifies that no interim enquiry or correspondence will be entertained. As per available Page 3 of 6 CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/650364 records, no information in this regard is presently available. The requested information is also not maintained in the format sought, as it is not required under the rules; however, the information in the format available has already been placed in the public domain on the CSIR website (https://www.csir.res.in/case-career-opportunities/recruitment)".

Further, the Applicant filed first appeal dated 03.11.2024 which was considered by the First Appellate Authority CSIR HQ and was replied to vide FAA CSIR HQ letter dated 12.11.2024(copy enclosed).

REPLY TO THE PRESENT SECOND APPEAL: As regards the reply of CSIR HQ in reference to this second appeal, a copy of the reply dated 19.01.2026, as furnished by the Recruitment Cell, CSIR HQ to the u/s, is attached herewith for kind perusal. (Annexure D) Therefore, in view of the factual position brought out as above, your Hon'ble self may kindly see for passing of orders as deemed appropriate.

The applicant also sought the breakup of shortlisted candidates based on their language medium.

The list of the candidates shortlisted for interview for the post of Section Officer was issued vide CSIR Notice No. 3-2(3)/2023-E.I(RC) dated 02.10.2024 and published on CSIR website. As far as number of candidates' medium wise selection, it is stated that the information is not maintained in the required format. It is respectfully submitted that the office was not in the position to provide the information as required by the applicant and the office not acted with any malafide intent..."

Decision:

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records observes that an appropriate reply has been provided by the PIO in reference to point No. 2 and 3 of the RTI Application.

CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/650364

9. As regards point No. 1 of the RTI Application Appellant has sought copy of his answer sheet of descriptive copy of CSIR CASE 2024 conducted on 7th July 2024. It observed that Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA. No. 6159-6162/2013, titled as UPSC vs Angesh Kumar, dated 20.02.2018 has dealt in detail with the issue of disclosure of evaluated conventional answer sheets. It is further noted that as regards disclosure of copies of evaluated answer scripts, the issue remains sub-judice before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (UPSC v. Kavitha Panicker & Anr., W.P.(C) 17101/2022) and is presently stayed. Accordingly, it would not be judicious to give any direction for disclosure of answer script of the Appellant at this stage.

8. However, it is observed that disclosure of marks of the Appellant in CSIR CASE 2024 conducted on 7th July 2024with a detailed breakup of each section would not affect the confidentiality of the examination that had already been concluded. Commission is of the considered opinion that withholding such information unnecessarily allows doubts, which is not very healthy in promoting transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and public recruitment processes. It is worthwhile to highlight decision of Hon'ble Bombay Hight Court in Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar Vs. PIO, Registrar, District and Sessions Court, Pune & Ors., W.P. No. 9648 of 2021, decided on 11.11.2024 wherein the court held that disclosing a candidate's own marks and other candidates marks i.e. performance-related data enhances accountability and does not amount to an invasion of privacy. The aforementioned decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 2783/2025, dated 07.02.2025.

9. The Commission concurs with aforementioned view of court and holds that such disclosure of marks of candidates aligns with the objective of the RTI Act, which is to promote transparency in public recruitment. Accordingly, the PIO is directed to furnish to the Appellant certified information regarding the marks awarded to him in CSIR CASE 2024 conducted on 7th July 2024, with a detailed break up of each section, if available, as it relates solely to his own examination record.

CIC/CSIRD/A/2024/650364

10. The above directions shall be compiled within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report in this be filed with the Commission within a week thereafter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

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

(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO Under Secretary & CPIO, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (M/o.

Science & Technology), Anusandhan Bhawan, 2--Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

2 Atul Agnihotri Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)