Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4212
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
Lakshya Kumar Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India, Mumbai – Respondent
Complaint No. CIC/SBIND/C/2024/627357
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Shashi Bhushan Choudhuhry
The RTI Act's provisions on information disclosure and the permissible scope of inquiries for recruitment processes were affirmed by the Commission.
Headnote:This case addresses the provisions under the RTI Act concerning the request for information and the criteria for recruitment in the State Bank of India. The Complainant challenged the response given by the CPIO regarding the reasons for non-selection in a recruitment process. The Commission upheld the CPIO’s response, citing compliance with the RTI Act. The core issue revolved around the adequacy of the information provided and whether the complainant's inquiries were permissible under the RTI Act. The Commission found the CPIO's explanation satisfactory, concluding that no further action was warranted in the matter. The complaint has been duly closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rights to information under rti act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. cpio's response regarding non-selection. (Para 6) |
| 3. conclusion based on compliance with rti provisions. (Para 7) |
Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 04.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:
With reference to vacancy advertisement no. CRPD/SCO/2023-24/14 for recruitment of specialist officer in SBI. Please share the reason for rejection of below mentioned application for further round Application-2310008728 Post: Manager (Network Engineer) MMGS-III Also, provide the data on below queries pertains to advt. no. CRPD/SCO/2023-
24/14 for the post of Manager (Network Engineer) MMGS-III:
1. How many applications received by SBI.
2. Out of total applications, how many applications were received from existing SBI employees
3. If point no. 2 is applicable then, out of shortlisted candidates (for the post of Manager (Network Engineer)- MMGS-III, for interview. How many are of existing SBI employees. Share the data.
4. Share the criteria parameters adopted by authority to shortlist the applications
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
“Point No. 1: 67 Point No. 2 & 3: Data is not compiled/maintained at a single place in the ordinary course of business and collection/compilation thereof would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority, hence disclosure of the same is exempted under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act .
Point No. 4: Educational Qualification (Max 20 marks), Number of Certification (Max 20 marks), Total Experience (Max 20 marks).”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 18.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated Nil upheld the reply given by the CPIO. 4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated Nil.
5. The Complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shashi Bhushan Choudhuhry, DGM & CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia endorsed CPIO’s initial reply dated 13.05.2024 and stated that although the complainant’s request for not being shortlisted in the list of candidates for selection of specialist officer in SBI was outside the purview of RTI Act , they have clearly stated the reasons for his non-selection in their latest written submissions dated 26.09.2025.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate and point-wise reply has been given by the CPIO, as per provisions of the RTI Act . Further, in absence of the complainant and objections thereof, the respondent’s submissions are taken on record.
No further action is warranted in the matter. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.
