Granting Redressal for Non-Grant of Admission beyond Jurisdiction: CIC
21st June 2021, the Central Information Commission (CIC) in Gyan Prakash Singh v. Banaras Hindu University held that it is not in a position to adjudge the merits of the appellant’s claims since it is outside the scope of jurisdiction of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The Commission held:
The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
The appellant aggrieved by the non-admission of his child in class 6 approached the Banaras University RTI Cell and submitted that on the date of counselling the number of seats in the defendant University was 135 seats but before the date of counselling it was 107 and after counselling it again showed as 107 seats. He further submitted that his son cleared the admission entrance exam and stood at the 78th position in the General Category, in the qualifying list. However, he was not called for seeking admissions. The appellant had filed an application seeking information about his son not being called upon for admission. Dissatisfied by the information provided by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) dissatisfied, he filed an appeal before the CIC. However, the CPIO, Banaras Hindu University failed to give any satisfactory submission before the Commission.
The Commission, studying the matter before it, affirmed that the matter was not within the scope of the jurisdiction of the RTI Act and said:
However, the Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record that the reply provided to the instant RTI Application is as per the provisions of the RTI Act. It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the contentions of the Appellant seek redressal of grievance as to why his son was not admitted in Class 6 despite the fact that the Appellant believes that seats were available. The Commission is not in a position to adjudge the merits of his claims as the same is outside the scope of jurisdiction of the RTI Act. In this regard, the superior Courts have made observations in a catena of judgments over the course of time.
The Commission referring to the judgement given by the Delhi High Court in the case of Hansi Rawat and Anr v. Punjab National Bank and others1 wherein it held that the proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects.
In conclusion, the present case being beyond the scope of jurisdiction under the RTI Act was dismissed.
Rasmita Behera | Research Intern | EduLegaL
Swapna Iyer | Legal Editor | EduLegaL