Gujarat HC Dismisses RTI Writ Over MSU Baroda Appointment Data, Holds Correctness of Information Not Adjudicable Under RTI Act
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a party-in-person petition challenging a Gujarat Information Commission order, holding that RTI forums cannot adjudicate disputes about the correctness of information supplied.
Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak, sitting singly at the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, dismissed a writ petition filed by Himanshu Parsottambhai Parmar, appearing in person, against the State of Gujarat and others. The petitioner had challenged a common order dated 15 September 2025 passed by the Chief Gujarat Information Commissioner in Appeal No. A-4684-2024 and Complaint No. C-0145-2025. He sought quashing of that order, a direction to compel the respondent authorities to supply information sought in RTI applications dated 3 September 2024 and 30 November 2024, and compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The court found the petition meritless, holding that the RTI framework does not permit adjudication of disputes about whether information supplied is correct or complete.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The petitioner's grievance centred on the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda (MSU Baroda) and its process for filling temporary teaching posts. The Education Department, State of Gujarat had directed 14 public universities to make 11-month contractual appointments for teaching posts and to outsource non-teaching posts against sanctioned vacant positions. A Government of Gujarat resolution dated 22 April 1983 governed reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, and physically handicapped persons.
Against this backdrop, the petitioner filed a series of RTI applications. On 6 September 2023, he sought information from the Faculty of Commerce, MSU Baroda, including the total number of temporary teaching posts as per reservation, the number of applications received, lists of selected and non-selected candidates based on reservation, and the composition of the selection committee with reference to SC/ST representation. On 1 January 2024, he sought information on the prevailing reservation policy for temporary posts from the General Administrative Department and the Commissionerate of Higher Education, Gandhinagar. On 19 March 2024, following MSU Baroda's notification No. ADE/09/01/2023-2024 dated 11 March 2024 inviting applications for temporary Assistant Professor posts for the academic year 2024-2025, he filed another application seeking the total number of temporary posts, their classification under the State's reservation policy, and related budget information.
The petitioner's core complaint was that the Public Information Officer of the Faculty of Commerce had provided what he described as arbitrary, incomplete typed information without supporting office records, even after the Gujarat Information Commission passed its order on 15 September 2025. He made a representation on 4 October 2025 before the Chief Gujarat Information Commissioner and also approached the Governor of Gujarat, contending that the information supplied did not comply with the Commission's direction. He further alleged that the University had not complied with a circular dated 3 May 2022 issued by the Education Department, Gandhinagar, and had not uploaded the list of selected candidates. He also contended that respondent No. 1 had passed its order in violation of clause 15 of guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances and the Education Department.
What the Gujarat Information Commission Had Directed
The Gujarat Information Commission, in its common order of 15 September 2025, directed the Public Information Officer to supply specific information to the petitioner. The Commission's direction required the PIO to inform the petitioner, within 10 days of receipt of the order, whether category-wise reservation numbers had been indicated in the advertisement for Temporary Assistant Professor posts at the Faculty of Commerce for 2024-25, and to supply the sequential selection list and waiting list along with cut-off marks, free of charge by speed post.
The Commission also made an observation directed at the petitioner himself: “The Commission excepts that henceforth the complainant / complainant will refrain from filing a special application under the Right to Information Act in this regard.” This observation reflected the Commission's finding that the petitioner had filed more than 25 RTI applications one after another on the same subject matter.
The Legal Issue: Can RTI Forums Adjudicate Correctness of Information?
The central legal question was whether the RTI Act's appellate and complaint mechanism can be used to challenge the accuracy or completeness of information already supplied by a public authority. The petitioner's grievance was not that information had been withheld entirely, but that what was provided was typed without supporting office records and therefore unreliable.
The court turned to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines “information” as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in electronic form, and information relating to any private body accessible by a public authority under any other law in force. The court read this definition to mean that the obligation of a Public Information Officer is discharged once all information and documents accessible to the authority are provided. The insistence that original documents, rather than copies of accessible documents, must be supplied was held to fall outside the scope of the CPIO's obligation.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Prachchhak relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court Division Bench in Narendra Tyagi v. Assistant Director (CPIO), LPA 764/2023 decided on 6 December 2023, which in turn affirmed the earlier Division Bench ruling in Hansi Rawat & Anr. v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 168. The principle drawn from those decisions was unambiguous: proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of information furnished.
In Hansi Rawat, the Delhi High Court had dealt with a situation where appellants contended that the information given by a bank's PIO was misleading and wrong. The Division Bench held that the RTI Act's purpose is to enable a person to access information so as to effectively pursue other disputes, but the question of what inference to draw from the information, or whether it is accurate, must be determined in those other proceedings. The RTI forum's role ends once accessible information is supplied.
The Gujarat High Court applied this reasoning directly. The affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 3 clarified that information sought by the petitioner had been supplied in accordance with the Commission's order. The court accepted this position. It held that since the documents accessible to the respondents had already been supplied, the petitioner's demand for original records or for a finding that the typed information was incorrect was not within the purview of the RTI Act.
The court also took note of the Commission's finding that the petitioner had filed more than 25 RTI applications on the same subject, one after another. This factual background informed the court's overall assessment of the petition, though the dismissal rested squarely on the legal proposition that correctness of information is not adjudicable under the RTI framework.
Outcome
Justice Prachchhak dismissed the petition as meritless. Notice was discharged. No order as to costs was made.