Central Information Commission
Lakshya Kumar Agarwal vs Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of ... on 10 March, 2026
CIC/ICSOI/A/2024/654430
.
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/ICSOI/A/2024/654430
Lakshya Kumar Agarwal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: , Institute of
Company Secretaries of India ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
(M/o. Corporate Affairs),
Noida, UP
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
Second Appeal No. CIC/ICSOI/A/2024/654430
RTI : 26.09.2024 FA : 19.10.2024 SA : Nil.
CPIO : 17.10.2024 FAO : 14.11.2024 Hearing : 25.02.2026
Date of Decision: 03.03.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
Shri P R Ramesh
ORDER
1.1 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Share the Merit list including wait list.Page 1 of 7
CIC/ICSOI/A/2024/654430
2. Share the marks scored by Candidate Lakshya Kumar in interview held on 30th July 2024 and what is the minimum qualifying marks set by management for qualifying the interview.
2. Does ICSI has provision to declare wait list for the said position.
3. Does ICSI has provision to offer the position to wait listed candidate, if the selected candidate did not join organisation within stipulated time.
4. One of the eligibility criteria defined in advertisement was, the candidate should have certificates CEH/ECSA/OSCP & CCNA/CCNP/MCSE/RHEL (i.e.both certifications are mandatory).
4.1 Does ICSI concerned authority confirmed that, all the candidates who appeared for the interview had submitted both the required mandatory certifications during documentation verification. 4.2 Does ICSI concerned authority confirmed that, the required mandatory certifications submitted by all the candidates who appeared for the interview were valid as on cut-off date of advertisement.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"..1. Since the recruitment process has not yet been completed, therefore, the requisite information cannot be considered whether to be provided.
2. 70 marks scored by Candidate Lakshya Kumar in interview held on 30th July, 2024.
Since the recruitment process has not yet been completed, therefore, the requisite information cannot be considered whether to be provided.
Query is in the nature of seeking clarification and therefore, not covered U/s 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.Page 2 of 7
CIC/ICSOI/A/2024/654430
3. Query is in the nature of seeking clarification and therefore, not covered U/s 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
4. Since the recruitment process has not yet been completed, therefore, the requisite information cannot be considered whether to be provided.
However, it is necessary to mention that the query is in the nature of seeking clarification and therefore, not covered U/s 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005..."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 14.11.2024 observed as under:-
"..(4) The reply of the Respondent against the instant appeal is as under: -
"Since the RTI application pertains to Directorate of HR of the ICSI, therefore, the CPIO has asked for written submission from concerned Directorate for the same. Their submission is mentioned below:
"We reiterate our earlier reply."
Since the queries asked by Mr. Lakshya Kumar Agarwal, the then candidate and RTI Appellant herein was in the context of recruitment process, the reply was sent accordingly.
Further, it is necessary to mention that through the email, it was implied that the interview of candidates under the recruitment process has been completed, however, the joining process is yet to be completed.
Therefore, the contents made in the RTI Reply stands as it is and the appeal deserves to be dismissed."
Page 3 of 7CIC/ICSOI/A/2024/654430 (5) This Office has carefully considered the application, the response, the appeal and the records made available and finds that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record.
This office concurs with the submissions of the Respondent in his reply to the instant appeal.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of..."
4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Shri Sai Dutta Mishra, Director- Law and Shri Vinay Kumar, SEA- participated in the hearing.
5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that complete information was not provided to him in reference to a recruitment process for the post of IT security manager, viz, merit list, waiting list and eligibility criteria. He averred that he was also one of the two candidates who had appeared for the interview for the post of IT security manager. He stated that as he is directly affected/connected with recruitment made for the aforesaid post, therefore, information sought should be provided to him.
6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. A written submission dated 23.02.2026 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
".. 1. The Appellant vide his application dated 26.09.2024 had asked for certain information, which was duly replied by the CPIO vide reply dated 17.10.2024.Page 4 of 7
CIC/ICSOI/A/2024/654430
2. Aggrieved by the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed 1" Appeal before First Appellate Authority, which was disposed off by the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 14.11.2024.
3. Dissatisfied by the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 14.11.2024, the Appellant filed the instant 2nd Appeal before the Learned Central Information Commission.
4. With respect to query nos. 1 and 2: Since the recruitment process was not completed, therefore, the requisite information could not be provided.
5. With respect to query no. 3: The same is in the nature of seeking clarification and therefore, not covered under section 2(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
6. With respect to query no. 4: The said information could not be provided, since the recruitment process was not completed by then.
7. Since the selected candidate did not join the post as such the recruitment process was closed.
8. The same was reiterated by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint... vs The Goa State Information Commission, 2008 (110) Bom L. R 1238, "Information has been defined by Section 2(f) The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason Company why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information".Page 5 of 7
CIC/ICSOI/A/2024/654430
9. In view of the foregoing, the order of the First Appellate Authority should be affirmed, and the instant appeal should be disposed of accordingly with cost..."
Decision:
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has sought information regarding a recruitment process for the post of IT security manager. It is observed that at the time the reply was provided to the Appellant, the recruitment process was not completed. However, at this stage the recruitment process has been completed and as per records is closed. It is noted that the Appellant was one of the two candidates who had appeared for the interview for the post of IT security manager. Therefore, he is entitled to know the merit list and waiting list in case the same is available and the minimum qualifying marks set by management for qualifying the interview for the selection for the post of IT security manager.
8. Accordingly, the PIO is directed to furnish a revised reply with respect to point No. 1, and second part of Point No. 2 i.e. specifically furnish minimum qualifying marks set by management for qualifying the interview as available in official records, to the Appellant. In case the information sought is not available in the official records the same fact should be categorically reflected in the reply furnished by the PIO. The above direction should be complied with within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report in this regard be filed with the Commission within a week thereafter.
9. As regards other points of the RTI Application, the Commission is of the opinion that an appropriate reply in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act has been provided by the PIO. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमे श) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Page 6 of 7 CIC/ICSOI/A/2024/654430 Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Director & CPIO, Institute of Company Secretaries of India (M/o. Corporate Affairs), I.C.S.I. Bhawan, C-36 & 37, Sector-62, Institutional Area, NOIDA-201309 (Uttar Pradesh).
2 Lakshya Kumar Agarwal Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)