Holding

The petition is dismissed as meritless; the RTI forum cannot adjudicate disputes over the correctness of information and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought.

Summary

The petitioner, filing a special civil application, sought certiorari to quash orders of the Chief Gujarat Information Commissioner that directed the provision of information regarding temporary teaching posts and reservation policies at Maharaja Sayajirao University, and also sought compensation under the RTI Act. The petitioner alleged that the information supplied was incomplete, arbitrary, and that the university failed to comply with state reservation policies. The High Court examined the petition, noting the petitioner’s extensive history of RTI applications and the Commission’s observation that the petitioner should refrain from further applications. Relying on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Narendra Tyagi v. Assistant Director (CPIO) and the earlier Hansi Rawat judgment, the Court held that RTI proceedings cannot be used to adjudicate disputes over the correctness of information and that providing information as defined under Section 2(f) fulfills the authority’s duty. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as meritless, with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the order of the Chief Gujarat Information Commissioner directing the provision of information can be quashed.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act.
Whether the RTI forum can adjudicate disputes concerning the correctness of information supplied.
Whether the petitioner can compel the production of original documents beyond the information defined under Section 2(f).

Legislation cited

Right to Information Act, 2005s. 19(8)(b), s. 2(f)

Subjects

Right to InformationRTI ActReservation policyTemporary teaching postsPublic Information OfficerCertiorariCompensationJudicial review

Judgment

C/SCA/15120/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15120 of 2025

==========================================
HIMANSHU PARSOTTAMBHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 05/05/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Present petition is filed by the party-in-person, petitioner herein
under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 38, 46, 226 and 335 of the
Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Right to
Information Act (hereinafter be referred to as “the RTI Act”) seeking
the following reliefs:-

(A) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to admit and allow this
petition.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or
a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or directions directing to set aside the direction or order
of Chief Gujarat Information Commissioner for A-4684-2024
and C-0145-2025 dated 15/09/2025.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or
a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or directions directing to quash the direction or order of
Chief Gujarat Information Commissioner for A-4684-2024 and

Page 1 of 10
C/SCA/15120/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026

C-0145-2025 dated 15/09/2025.

(D) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or
a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or directions directing to the respondent authorities to
provide information as requested in RTI applications dated
03/09/2024 and 30/11/2024 as per provisions of Section 2(F) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(E) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or
a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or directions directing to provision of compensation to
the RTI applicant (the petitioner) under Section 19(8)(b) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005.

(F) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought
just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.

2. Brief facts of the present case are, in nutshell, as under:-

2.1 That the Government of Gujarat has issued resolution on
22.04.1983 regarding reservation of posts in the cadre of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Socially Educationally
Backward Classes and physically handicapped.

2.2 That the Education Department, State of Gujarat has directed
14 Public Universities for 11 months contractual appointment of
teaching posts and out-sourcing of non-teaching posts, both against
the sanctioned vacant posts.

2.3 That the petitioner has made an application under Right to
Information Act on 06.09.2023 for total number of temporary teaching
posts as per reservation, total number of application received for
temporary teaching posts, list of selected and non-selected
candidates based on reservation, SCs/STs representative in the

Page 2 of 10
C/SCA/15120/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026

selection committee and other information from Faculty of Commerce,
The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda.

2.4 That the petitioner has made an applications on 01.01.2024 for
prevailing reservation policy of State Government in appointment of
temporary posts at General Administrative Department and
Commissionerate of Higher Education, Government of Gujarat,
Gandhinagar.

2.5 That the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda had invited
online application for the post of Temporary Assistant Professors and
various other Teaching posts in different Departments of Faculties/
colleges/Institutions that are to be filled for 11 months of the
Academic Year 2024-2025 purely on temporary basis Notification No.
ADE/09/01/2023-2024 dated 11.03.2024.

2.6 That the petitioner has made an application on 19.03.2024 for
total number of temporary posts, their classification based on
reservation policy of State, Government of Gujarat resolution on
conversion of sanctioned posts into non-sanctioned post for
temporary appointment and head budget expenditure from the
Maharaja Sayajirao University.

2.7 That the petitioner has made an RTI application for total
number of temporary teaching posts as per reservation, total number
of application received for temporary teaching posts, list of selected
and non-selected candidates based on reservation, SCs/STs
representative in the selection committee and other information at
Faculty of Commerce, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda.

Page 3 of 10
C/SCA/15120/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026

2.8 That the petitioner has made an application for total number of
temporary teaching posts as per reservation, total number of
application received for temporary teaching posts, list of selected and
non-selected candidates based on reservation, SCs/STs representative
in the selection committee and other information from The Maharaja
Sayajirao University of Baroda.

2.9 That the Gujarat Information Commission has fixed the hearing
of second appeal for Appeal No. A-4684-2024 and Complaint No. C-
0145-2025 through online mode. The Commissioner has passed the
common order in appeal and complaint on 15.09.2025.

2.10 That the petitioner has informed for about incomplete order /
direction by the Gujarat Information Commission and also requested
to modify the order as per the information requested in the
application. The Public Information Officer of Faculty of Commerce
has provided arbitrary, incomplete typed information without
supporting of office records based on the order/ direction of the
Gujarat Information Commission on 15.09.2025.

2.11 That the petitioner has made a representation on 04.10.2025
before the Chief Gujarat Information Commissioner for providing
arbitrary, incomplete typed information by the Public Information
Officer of Faculty of Commerce, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of
Baroda. The petitioner has also made representation before the
Governor of Gujarat for incomplete order / direction by the Gujarat
Information Commission and also informed that the Pubic Information
Officer of Faculty of Commerce has provided arbitrary, incomplete
typed information without supporting of office records.

Page 4 of 10
C/SCA/15120/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026

3. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents,
the present petition is filed.

4. Heard party-in-person – petitioner herein, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondents No.2, 3 and 4.

5. The party-in-person has submitted the same facts which are
narrated in the memo of petition and has also submitted that the
decision taken by the respondent – authorities directing the various
departments to provide appointment information of respective posts
is illegal, unjust and improper. He has submitted that the University
had not complied with prevailing reservation policy of the State for
appointment of temporary teaching posts and the respondents –
authorities have provided incomplete and typed information without
supporting office records. He has submitted that the University has
not complied with the circular dated 03.05.2022 issued by the
Education Department, Gandhinagar and even not uploaded the list of
selected candidates.

5.1 The party-in-person has further submitted that respondent
No.1 has passed the order in violation of the guidelines issued
Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievance and Education Department
more particularly clause 15 of the guidelines.

6. The respondent No.3 has filed the affidavit-in-reply opposing
the petition and dealt with the contentions raised by the party-in-
person in the memo of petition.

7. The respondent – No.1 authority has, while passing the order
and disposing the appeal, has observed as under:-

Page 5 of 10
C/SCA/15120/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026

“ The Public Information Officer is informed in the said details
of the joint that as per the said submission of the dispute /
complainant, if the category wise number has been indicated
under the reservation policy at the time of advertisement of
the Temporary Assistant Professor for the Faculty of
Commerce of Maharaja Sayajirao University during the year
2024-25, then the number or the reply as per the said
submission and the list of names of the candidates on the
sequential selection list and waiting list prepared taking into
account the merit of the candidates in the context of the
advertisement given during the year 2024-25 and the cut off
marks fixed for fixing the list, the dispute / complainant shall
be informed within 10 days from the date of receipt of the
order of the Information Commission, it should be sent to the
complainant free of charge by speed post.

8. This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and the submissions and perused the material placed on record.
On perusal of the affidavit-in-reply, the respondent – authority has
clarified that the information which was sought for by the petitioner
was supplied, as per the order passed by the Commission. It is also
observed by the authorities that the petitioner was in habit of making
an application under the provisions of the RTI Act and as many as
more than 25 applications have been filed one after another. While
passing the order, respondent No.1 has made the following
observations.

“The Commission excepts that henceforth the complainant /
complainant will refrain from filing a special application under
the Right to Information Act in this regard.”

9. Now, in view of the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the
case of Narendra Tyagi Vs. Assistant Director (CPIO) in LPA 764/2023
& CM Application No.60986 – 60987 of 2023 dated 06.12.2023

Page 6 of 10
C/SCA/15120/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026

wherein the High Court of Delhi has held and observed in paras 9 and
10 as under:-

“9. The main dispute raised by the appellant is that wrong
information has been provided to him by the CPIO in response to his
RTI application. The learned Single Judge after considering the facts
and circumstances of the present case categorically held that the
proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into
proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the
information supplied. Thus, the learned Single Judge held as follows:

“XXX XXX XXX

3. The short question which, therefore, arises for consideration is
as to whether the forums under the RTI Act can adjudicate disputes
raised by a person seeking information under the RTI Act regarding
the correctness of the information supplied ?

4. This issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Hansi Rawat & Anr.
v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 168, wherein
this Court has passed the following order:

“1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 15.10.2012 of
the learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 6556/2012
preferred by the appellants. The said writ petition was preferred
challenging the order dated 30.08.2012 of the Central Information
Commission (CIC) dismissing the Second Appeal preferred by the
appellants against the order dated 21.05.2011 of the First Appellate
Authority. The First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal
preferred by the appellants against the information dated
18.03.2011 provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the
respondent Bank in response to the application dated 19.02.2011 of
the appellants under the provisions of the Right to Information Act
(RTI), 2005.

2. The First Appellate Authority in its order dated 21.05.2011
held that though information sought by the appellants had been
provided to the appellants, the grievance of the appellants was that
the information supplied was misleading and wrong. The First
Appellate Authority held that information in possession of the
respondent Bank had already been provided and no opinion as
sought in the application could be provided. The First Appellate
Authority also did not find any discrepancy in the information

Page 7 of 10
C/SCA/15120/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026

provided.

3. The CIC in its order noted, that the appellant No. 2 had been
removed from service of the respondent Bank; that the appellants
had sought information on 39 points; that the grievance of the
appellants was that misleading and vague information had been
provided on the points raised in the RTI application; that the
appellants had filed 50 to 60 RTI applications in their names,
separately, together as well as in the names of their friends and also
through some advocates, on the same subject and on the same
questions; that the appellants are misusing the RTI Act needlessly.
The CIC further, on examination of the record did not find any
reason to interfere with the decision of the PIO and the First
Appellate Authority of the respondent Bank.

4. Before the learned Single Judge also, the contention of the
appellants was that the information given is not correct. The learned
Single Judge went through the RTI application of the appellants and
the response thereto and found that the information sought had
already been furnished. The learned Single Judge has further
observed that the only obligation of the respondent Bank, from
which information had been sought, under the RTI Act, was to give
information available and no further and the said obligation had
been fulfilled.

5. The counsel for the appellants does not controvert the factum
of a number of RTI applications having been filed by the appellants
themselves or through other persons to the PIO of the respondent
Bank. He has however drawn attention to the information sought at
serial Nos. 11 to 14 and 26 of the RTI application and the response
thereto and on the basis thereof has contended that information has
not been provided and/or the information provided is incorrect.

6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed
adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of
the appellant No. 2 from the employment of the respondent Bank is
admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The
purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively
pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is
to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to
the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said
proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act
cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as
to the correctness of the information furnished. Moreover, there is a
categorical finding of the CIC, of the appellants misusing the RTI
Act, as is also evident from the plethora of RTI applications filed by
the appellants. In view of the said factual findings of the CIC and

Page 8 of 10
C/SCA/15120/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026

which is not interfered by the learned Single Judge, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 7.
We do not find any merit in the appeal which is dismissed. No order
as to costs.”

(emphasis supplied)

5. In view of the above, the CIC cannot adjudicate upon the
disputes regarding questions raised by an RTI Applicant. This Court,
therefore, does not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the
CIC.

XXX XXX XXX”

10. At this stage reference may be made to the definition of
information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which is reproduced
below:

“2. Definition.-………

…………

(f) “information” means 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 any electronic form and information
relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public
authority under any other law for the time being in force;

XXX XXX XXX”

10. In view of the above, the information is required to be provided
under the RTI Act includes various records, documents, circulars etc.
which can be accessed by the Public Authority under any other law for
the time being in force. Thus, the responsibility of the CPIO is
discharged under the RTI Act upon providing all such information and
documents that may be accessible to him. Meaning thereby that the
document which is accessible to the respondents, they have already
supplied the copy thereof to the petitioner, but the insistence of the
petitioner that the original document is to be supplied is not purview
of the CPIO – respondent No.1 and, therefore, the contention raised by

Page 9 of 10
C/SCA/15120/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2026

the party-in-person is not tenable in the eyes of law and, therefore,
the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed.

11. In the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Notice is
discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/05/2026 17:12:19

Page 10 of 10