Appeal No. 6985 of 2026 filed by Narendran K

Appeal No. 6985 of 2026

Page

1 of

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Appeal No. 6985 of 2026

Narendran K : Appellant

CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent

ORDER

1. The appellant had filed an application dated June 26, 2026 (received by SEBI through RTI MIS portal) under

the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The respondent, by a letter dated July 16, 2026 responded

to the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal dated July 17, 2026 (Reg. No.

SEBIH/A/E/26/0264). I have perused the application, the response of the respondent and the appeal and

find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record.

2. Queries in the application - The appellant, in his application, sought the following information:

“1. Give me the no of vacancies as on today in Officer Grade A (Assistant Manager) 0n General Stream

2. Is the recruitment planned in 2026 for the post of Officer Grade A in any streams and if so please provide the tentative

vacancies”

3. Reply of the Respondent – The respondent, in response to the application, informed that the information

sought is in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion. Accordingly, the same cannot be construed as

“information” as defined under section 2(f) of RTI Act.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the respondent informed that vacancies arise due to promotions, resignations

and retirements of employees. SEBI undertakes recruitment and promotion exercises periodically to fill up

the vacancies. The respondent also stated that the details regarding recruitment exercises are published on

SEBI website.

Appeal No. 6985 of 2026

Page

2 of

4. Ground of appeal – The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that he was provided incomplete,

misleading or false information.

5. I have perused the application and the response provided thereto. With regard to query no.1, I note that the

respondent has informed that vacancies arise due to promotions, resignations and retirements of employees.

The respondent also stated that the details regarding recruitment exercises are published on SEBI website.

Accordingly, I find that the respondent has adequately addressed the query no.1, by providing the

information available with him.

6. With regard to query no.2, I concur with the response of the respondent that the query is in the nature of

seeking clarification/opinion/confirmation from the respondent. I find that the said query cannot be

construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Consequently, the

respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification or opinion or confirmation under the

RTI Act. In this context, reliance is placed on matter of Azad Singh vs. CPIO, Oriental Insurance Company Limited

(order dated March 23, 2021) wherein Hon’ble Central Information Commission(CIC) observed that “7. The

Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observed that some queries of the

appellant are in the nature of seeking explanation/opinion/advice/confirmation/clarification from the CPIO and he has

expected that the CPIO firstly should analyze the documents and then provide information to the appellant. But the CPIO is

not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to compile information as per the desire of the appellant under

the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the

applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by

the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be

expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.” Accordingly, I do not

find any deficiency in the response of the respondent.

7. In view of the above observations, I find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Place: Mumbai RUCHI CHOJER

Date: August 13, 2026 APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA