Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sandeepan Ghosh vs Staff Selection Commission on 10 March, 2026

                                   केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SSCOM/A/2025/603621

Sandeepan Ghosh                                               ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम
CPIO: Staff Selection
Commission, Kolkata                                       ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 13.10.2024             FA    : 07.11.2024               SA     : Nil

CPIO : 28.10.2024            FAO : 12.11.2024                 Hearing : 05.02.2026


Date of Decision: 09.03.2026

                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.10.2024 seeking information on the following points:

➢ Relates to Recruitment to the Post of Court Master In CESTAT vide post Category No ER12223 of Advertisement No. Phase XI/2023/Selection posts Vacancy details :

02 (1 -UR, 1 -OBC)( 0 -Ex-Serviceman, 0 -OH, 1 -HH, 0 -VH, 0 -Others ) Result declared vide File no. S-6012/26/2023-Recruitment dated 28.08.2024 of SSC Eastern Region

1. SSC declared the above referred vacancy as per whose requisition? Give me the CIC/SSCOM/A/2025/603621 Page 1 of 4 detailed certified copy of the said requisition.

2. Provide the legitimate base of the following activity by SSC - only One (01) candidate result has been declared against Two (02) vacancies?

3. Details of documents of by which the requiring authority declared in writing to reduce the vacancy?

4. If the reply to the above question no. 03 is: No such document is there, the intimate the details of the competent authority in SSC to decide to reduce the vacancy?

5. Any rectification Notification to the above mentioned notification viz. Advertisement No. Phase XI/2023/Selection posts, has been published in the public domain in due course? If yes, provide me the detailed certified copy of the corrigendum notification.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"Point No. 1: You are requested to follow para 2.1 of Advertisement Notice RHQS015/17/2022-RHQ dated 06/03/2024 Point No. 2 and 3: Final Result of Post Category ER12223 has been declared based on the result of CBE of Phase XI/2023/Selection Posts, Preliminary Scrutiny Status, Tentative EQ Accepted List and the report of DV received from the user Department Point No. 4: Information sought is hypothetical in nature and is not covered under the definition of INFORMATION under Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 Point No. 5: Information sought is hypothetical in nature. However, information provided w.r.t. Point No. 2 and 3 above refers. It is further informed that w.r.t. information already available in public domain decision of CIC in the case of Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs CBSE, Case No. CIC/DS/A/2011/003029/RM dated CIC/SSCOM/A/2025/603621 Page 2 of 4 11/12/2012 refers."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.11.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.11.2024 stated as under:

"Your RTI Application No. SSCER/R/E/24/00520 dated 13.10.2024 and reply furnished thereto by the CPIO on 28.10.2024 has been carefully considered. It has been observed that the CPIO has inadvertently mentioned the date of publication of the Advertisement Notice No. RKQS015/17/2022-RHQ as 06.03.2024 which may be read as 06.03.2023. Rest of the reply furnished by the CPIO is upheld."

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

Hearing Proceedings & Decision:

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Debjyoti Mishra, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia reiterated their initial reply dated 28.10.2024 and submitted that the name of the Ministry/Department/Office was mentioned in the averred notification/advertisement. Further, the procedure, legitimate base and other details were also mentioned therein.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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: 09.03.2026 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Staff Selection Commission, Eastern Region, Nizam Palace, 1st MSO Building, 8th Floor, 234/4, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal - 700020

2. Sandeepan Ghosh CIC/SSCOM/A/2025/603621 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)