Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Srikanth Gummadavalli 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
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UPSCM/A/2025/613686

Srikanth Gummadavalli                                            ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

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

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 06.03.2025              FA      : 10.03.2025               SA     : Nil

CPIO : 10.03.2025             FAO : 21.03.2025                   Hearing : 06.04.2026


Date of Decision: 20.04.2026

                                         CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                        ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.03.2025 seeking information on the following points:

➢ In the recruitment for 418 vacancy EO AO EPFO Exam of 2023 (Advt. No. 51/2023, Vacancy No. 23025101725)

1. Please give an anonymized list of marks of all 113 OBC candidates who appeared for the interview, without disclosing their names or roll numbers.

2. Please give an anonymized list of marks of all OBC candidates who appeared for the interview and secured minimum interview marks of 45, without disclosing their names or roll numbers.

3. If the anonymized list cannot be provided please share the number of OBC candidates who scored more than 204.18, indicating how many of them secured minimum interview marks of 45. Also indicate out of these how many were finally selected and how many were not?

4. Please also share the number of OBC candidates who scored exactly 204.18 indicating how many of them secured minimum interview marks of 45.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.03.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"You have not mentioned your Roll number in your online RTI application, hence the desired information cannot be provided. Moreover, Disclosure of personal details/information of other candidates held by the Commission in a fiduciary relationship is exempted under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. As such information sought cannot be shared."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.03.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 21.03.2025 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

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 K. Thomas Maring, CPIO, attended the hearing in-person.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that apart from the fact that the information sought by the appellant pertained to other candidates/third- parties, the data was not maintained in the prescribed manner. However, the data regarding all candidates who appeared in EO AO EPFO Exam of 2023 was available in totality, although the specific data referred to in the RTI application was required to be CIC/UPSCM/A/2025/613686 Page 2 of 4 created at their end. Further, the CPIO relied upon the latest written submissions dated 02.04.2026 which are taken on record and are reproduced as under:

"In this connection, it is stated that the information desired by the applicant Sh. Srikanth Gummadavalli cannot be provided as it is third party information. Marks details of all candidates have already been uploaded on the website of the commission. Further, the information is not available in the form as desired by the applicant and CPIO is not supposed to perform analysis on the available information. It is also mentioned that new queries cannot be raised at the appeal stage."

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the respondent in their initial response did not clearly state that the data sought was not maintained in the prescribed manner as sought in the RTI application. The CPIO during the course of hearing confirmed that the data concerning all candidates was available in totality and was not maintained category-wise, as requested for by the appellant. In view of their oral submissions, the respondent is directed to give a revised reply to the appellant, in line with their oral submissions, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under due intimation to the Commission. Accordingly, the appeal 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/A/2025/613686 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. Srikanth Gummadavalli CIC/UPSCM/A/2025/613686 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)