“Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) including visual impairment/blindness, is categorically provided by SEBI in their Advertisement for recruitment of Officers in Grade A.”: SEBI.

Appeal No. 43521 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43521 Sujeet Kumar CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 25 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005Are color blind persons eligible to join SEBI as Grade A SEBI accept color blind persons or not because it is mandatory in only defence. The respondent in response to the queries informed that the same are in the nature of seeking clarification opinion and accordingly cannot be construed as seeking “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. I have perused the query and the response provided thereto. On consideration I agree with the observation of the respondent that the query is in the nature of eliciting a clarification or opinion of the respondent. It is understood that the respondent is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. I find that the said queries cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2 of the RTI Act. Consequently the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification under the RTI Act. In this context Appeal No. 43521 reference is made to the mater of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO United India Insurance Company Limitedwherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. Further in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO SEBII note that the Hon’ble CIC held: “... we would also like to observe that under the Right to InformationAct the citizen has the responsibility to specify the exact information he wants he is not supposed to seek any opinion or comments or clarifications or interpretations from the CPIO...”. In view of the said observations I do not find any deficiency in the response. 6. Notwithstanding the same I note that the relevant details with respect to Persons with Benchmark Disabilities including visual impairment blindness is categorically provided by SEBI in their Advertisement for recruitment of Officers in Grade A. It is understood that the same is available on the SEBI website which is available in the public domain. 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 Date: July 19 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 

Summary: The appellate authority under the RTI (Right to Information) Act of the Securities and Exchange Board of India comprising of Mr. Anand Baiwar adjudicated in the matter of Sujeet Kumar v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4350 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant, Mr Sujeet Kumar had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 25th of May, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 16th of June, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 16th of June, 2021, on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 19th of June, 2021. In his application, the appellate was seeking the following information: “1) Are color blind persons eligible to join SEBI as Grade A ? SEBI accept color blind persons or not because it is mandatory in only defence.” The respondent, in response to the queries, informed that the same are in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion and accordingly, cannot be construed as seeking “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that the information provided was incomplete, misleading or false. On perusal of the appeal, it appears that the appellant is not satisfied with the reply to query number 1. For the query, the appellate authority, Mr Anand Baiwar, made reference to the matter of Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited (Judgment dated January 21, 2021), wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. Further, in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated January 17, 2013), it was noted that the Hon’ble CIC held: “… we would also like to observe that, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the citizen has the responsibility to specify the exact information he wants; he is not supposed to seek any opinion or comments or clarifications or interpretations from the CPIO…”. In view of these observations, the appellate authority found no deficiency in the response.