Central Information Commission
Prerakkumar Prakashbhai Rathod vs All India Council For Technical ... on 25 February, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/AICTE/A/2025/618682
Prerakkumar Prakashbhai Rathod .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR
TECHNICAL EDUCATION, RTI CELL,
HEAD OFFICE: DELHI, NELSON
MANDELA ROAD, VASANT KUNJ, NEW
DELHI-110070 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.02.2026
Date of Decision : 25.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.03.2025
CPIO replied on : 02.04.2025
First appeal filed on : 02.04.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 11.04.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.03.2025 seeking information regarding the faculty strength for 2nd and 3rd year student of Diploma in Computer Engineering at Dr. S & S.S. Gandhy Government Engineering College, Surat, including inter alia, the following:-
"1) Total number of faculty members currently assigned to the Diploma Computer Engineering branch for 2nd and 3rd-year students.Page 1 of 5
2) The educational background and specialization of these faculty members (e.g., Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, etc.).
3) Whether the current faculty strength is sufficient to handle 160 students and 11 subjects in these years.
4) If the faculty strength is insufficient, who is responsible for addressing this issue, and what steps are being taken to recruit or assign additional faculty?"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 02.04.2025 stating as under:-
"Please Point No. 1 & 2 AICTE PORTAL STATISTIC and go to AICTE APPROVED UNIVERSITIES & INSTITUTIONS Point No. 3&4 visit this link APH Faculty Cadre Rao 6.15 & Annexure 5."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.04.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 11.04.2025, stated as under:-
"It is to inform you that the PIO CR, AICTE New Delhi has been requested to review the RTI Application and provide reply under RTI Act, 2005 directly to the applicant."
4. Aggrieved by the non-compliance of FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Prerakkumar Prakashbhai Rathod, present through video conference.
Respondent: Dr. Anil K. Sharma, AD/PIO along with Shri M. Samson, DEO Gr. - III present in person.
5. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
6. Appellant while narrating the factual background stated that only three faculty members are assigned for 11 subjects, two classes to all Computer Engineering students. Due to such inadequate strength the students of Dr. S & S.S. Gandhy Government Engineering College, Surat are not receiving proper academic attention, which is severely affecting their learning and academic performance. The lack of proper faculty and teaching resources is putting the Page 2 of 5 students' education at risk. Hence, the Appellant filed RTI application to clarify the factual status and on non-receipt of satisfactory response from the CPIO and FAA, he filed the instant Second Appeal before the Commission. Appellant initially prayed the Commission to redact his name while disposing this Appeal and sought prompt action to resolve this matter at the earliest. Appellant further urged the Commission that till such inadequate faculty, the College should at least make arrangements for guest/visiting faculty to impart proper teaching/guidance to the Appellant.
7. PIO submitted that a point wise reply was provided to the Appellant initially by inviting his attention towards the specific web link from where the prescribed ratio of faculty students can be checked. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, a revised point-wise updated reply was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 10.02.2026 informing that "Point No. 1&2; Applicant may visit AICTE dashboard for information regarding faculties, However, the information sought by applicant regarding faculties assigned for 2nd & 3rd year Diploma Computer Engineering is not available. Point No. 3& 4; The content of RTI request is not defined as information under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
8. PIO clarified that role of AICTE is restricted to only prescribe the Statistic of student-faculty ratio, and recruitment of faculty is the prerogative of State Government Authorities. Further, as per AICTE Regulations, 2019, every College/approved Insitutions should have Grievance Redressal Mechanism and thereafter, there is a provisions of Ombudsman. If the Appellant has any grievance on this issue, he may approach the concerned State Government Authorities or may file complaint on GRC (Grievance Redressal Cell) of the College or AICTE for redressal of his grievance.
9. In rebuttal to CPIO's submissions, Appellant stated that he tried to address this issue before the Principal and higher ups of the College, however, they threaten the Appellant to either rusticate him from the College or debar him from attempting the exams by showing shortage of attendance.
Decision:
10. Heard the parties at length.
11. On being questioned by the Bench as to what other relevant documents could be shared/disclosed to the Appellant to bring transparency vis-à-vis information sought in the matter, the PIO replied that on directions of the CIC, Page 3 of 5 PIO will communicate the deficiency to the College concerned to cure the same and intimate its status to the Appellant as well as the CIC, thereafter.
12. The Commission on hearing the submissions of the parties and going through the case records observed that, as regards information sought by the Appellant regarding inadequate faculty strength of the College concerned from AICTE, the PIO replied that statistics of the student faculty of the approved technical colleges are available on dashboard which can be accessed from the website of AICTE. The PIO further clarified that recruitment of faculty comes under the jurisdiction of concerned State Government Authorities where AICTE being governed under Central Government has no role to play. In this regard, even though the Commission notes that reply of PIO is appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 as the PIO can only provide such information as is held in the office record, and as a matter of fact, he is not obligated to create information under the mandate of RTI Act. The Commission placed reliance on a judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 04.12.2014 in the case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011], wherein the Court has held as under:
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
13. Further, the issue raised by the Appellant during hearing regarding inadequate strength of faculty in the College under reference is a matter of great concern which can be addressed by the concerned State Government Authorities who are competent to address these concerns by effectively providing a solution resulting in win-win situation for students as well as meeting the requirements for faculty.
14. Nonetheless, by taking liberal view and purposive interpretation of the RTI Act, 2005 in the matter, Dr. Anil K. Sharma, AD/PIO is directed to issue letter/correspondence to Dr. S & S.S. Gandhy Government Engineering College, Surat, pointing out the concern of inadequate strength of faculty at the earliest for curing this deficiency. The said communication be issued to Dr. S & S.S. Gandhy Government Engineering College, Surat within one week from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of the same be also filed before the Commission Page 4 of 5 with a copy marked to the Appellant, free of cost. The direction shall be complied by PIO within one week from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रेलंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Prerakkumar Prakashbhai Rathod Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)