Times News NetworkAhmedabad: The Gujarat high court has dismissed a petition seeking original documents from the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda under the RTI Act, stating that supplying original documents was not within the purview of the central public information officer (CPIO).The petition was filed by Himanshu Parmar, who sought information and further disclosure under the RTI Act from the university regarding temporary teaching appointments. His RTI applications covered concerns including reservation in temporary teaching posts, the number of applicants, selection and waiting lists, and whether SC/ST representatives were part of selection committees. He also alleged that the university had failed to comply with an education department circular dated May 3, 2022, and had not uploaded the list of selected candidates.Parmar was not satisfied with information supplied by the university’s information authority and appealed, contending that it was incomplete and unsupported by office records. The Gujarat Information Commission passed an order on Sept 15, 2025, holding that the information officer can supply information available to him.Not satisfied with the authorities’ orders, Parmar filed a petition in the HC, insisting that office records be provided as well. The university opposed his petition and clarified that the information he had sought was provided in accordance with the order passed by the Commission. The information officer also submitted that the petitioner was in the habit of filing RTI applications and had filed 25 applications one after the other. At one point, he was asked to refrain from filing applications on the same issue.After hearing the matter, Justice H M Prachchhak said the CPIO’s responsibility under the RTI Act ends with providing all information and documents accessible to him. The court noted that copies of accessible documents had already been supplied. The court said that “the insistence of the petitioner that the original document is to be supplied is not within the purview of the CPIO”, and therefore the contention raised by the petitioner was “not tenable in the eyes of law”.“The petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed,” the court said.
