Central Information Commission
Karthik Khanna S. vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 12 February, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NITTI/C/2024/128086
Karthik Khanna S ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
National Institute of Technology,
RTI Cell, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu
PIN - 620015 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026
Date of Decision : 11.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 02.06.2024
CPIO replied on : 18.06.2024
First appeal filed on : 26.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : N.A.
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14.08.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.06.2024 seeking the following information:-
" Please provide the requested information in following questions regarding admission of students in your institute in year 2023 under Tamilnadu state quota to B.Tech course under Electronics ad Communication Engineering (ECE) Department.
1) Please list down all minimum eligibility criteria/requirements from a student to be admitted in your institute under Tamilnadu state quota to Page 1 of 8 B.Tech course under Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) department?
2) For how many minimum continuous years (including twelfth standard) should a student have studied in school(s) situated in Tamilnadu for admission in your institute in year 2023 under Tamilnadu state quota to B.Tech course under Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) department?
3) What was the total number of students admitted in your institute in year 2023 under Tamilnadu state quota to B.Tech course under Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) department?
4) What were the list of original documents checked/scrutinized/verified/investigated by your institute for admission of a student in year 2023 under Tamilnadu state quota to B.Tech course under Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) department?
5) Did your institute check/scrutinize/verify/investigate Tamilnadu nativity or domicile certificate of those students admitted in year 2023 under Tamilnadu state quota to B.Tech course under Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE)?
6) How many students admitted in year 2023 under Tamilnadu state quota to B.Tech course under department submitted/showed his/her Tamilnadu nativity or domicile certificate?
7) Did your institute check/scrutinize/verify/investigate Tenth standard board marksheet as a proof of a student Tenth standard study in a school in Tamilnadu of those students admitted in year 2023 under Tamilnadu state quota to B.Tech course under Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) department?
8) How many students admitted in year 2023 under Tamilnadu state quota to B.Tech course under Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) department submitted/showed his/her Tenth standard board marksheet as a proof of his/her Tenth standard study in a school in Tamilnadu during his/her admission?
9) Did your institute check/scrutinize/verify/investigate any document(s) as a proof of their continuous period of study in school(s) in Tamilnadu from Eighth to Twelfth standard?Page 2 of 8
10) As a proof of their continuous study from Eighth to Twelfth standard in school(s) situated in Tamilnadu, What are/were the documents submitted/showed by those students admitted in year 2023 under Tamilnadu state quota to B.Tech course under Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) department?"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 18.06.2024 stating as under:-
Reply:-"SI. No 01 to 10 All required information is available on the jossa official website:
https://josaa.admissions.nic.in/applicant/scatmatrix.openingclosingrank archieve.aspx &"
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 26.06.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 26.07.2024, upheld reply of the CPIO.
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Complainant is before the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Shri Karthik Khanna S present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar, AR/CPIO present through video conference.
5. Written statement filed by the CPIO is taken on record.
6. Complainant pleaded that reply furnished by the CPIO is incomplete and misleading as complete information specially the total number of student admitted in 2023 batch for B. Tech course under Tamil Nadu State quota was not reflecting on the website. Further, the documents considered by the NIT for verification of State Quota was also not informed to the Complainant. He prayed the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the complete requested information.
7. CPIO stated that a timely reply was provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 18.06.2024 by inviting attention towards specific URL path. Further, Page 3 of 8 upon receipt of today's hearing from CIC a revised point wise reply was uploaded on the Central Information on 04.02.2026. Relevant extracts of which are reproduced below:-
"1. It is submitted that admissions to the Course Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech.) to the National Institute of Technology Tiruchirappalli (NITT) are conducted strictly through the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) in accordance with the prescribed admission framework and business rules. (https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s313111c20aee51aeb480ecbd988cd8cc9/uplo ads/2023/06/2023061151.pdf, https://www.nitt.edu/home/admissions/btech/https://josaa.nic.in/)
2. The process of seat allocation, including publication of the seat matrix (Home state and other states), opening and closing ranks, and admission rules, is centrally administered by JoSAA and is made available in the public domain through its official website.
(https://josaa.nic.in/document/seat-matrix-2022/)
3. After allotment of seats by JoSAA, candidates report to the allotted institute. The role of NITT is limited to verification of original documents and confirmation of admission in accordance with JoSAA business rules.
4. In response to the RTI application, the applicant was duly informed and provided with the relevant official links, which include:
The JoSAA Business Rules, which comprehensively govern the admission process.
The JoSAA seat matrix and opening/closing ranks corresponding to the requested admission year and branch for NITT.
5. Since the information sought by the applicant is already available in the public domain and maintained by JoSAA, the reply furnished to the applicant was in full compliance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
6. The information was neither denied nor withheld, and the applicant was appropriately guided to the authentic sources where the requested information is readily accessible.
Kindly refer to the Business Rules of JoSAA Refer to the Link https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s313111c20aee5 Taeb480ecbd988cd8cc9/uploads/2023/06/2023 061151.pdf Page 4 of 8 V. DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS INTO PROGRAM SECTIONS
11. Distribution of Program seats in NIT+ System Kindly refer to the Business Rules of JoSAA Refer to the Link https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s313111c20ace5 1aeb480ecbd988cd8cc9/uploads/2023/06/2023 061151.pdf IV CATEGORIZATION OF CANDIDATES Point 8 (Definition of State Code of Eligibility) Refer to the Following link https://josaa.nic.in/document/seal-matrix 2022/ https://www.nitt.edu/home/admissions/btec h/OPENING%20AND%20CLOSING%20RAN K%20(B.Tech %20B.Arch.) 2023.pdf. Kindly refer to the Business Rules of JoSAA Refer to the Link https://cdnbber.s3waas.gov.in/s313111e20ace5 laeb480ecbd988cd8cc9/uploads/2023/06/2023 061151.pdf Document Verification details.
NA NA Kindly refer Business rules of JoSAA Refer the Link https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s313111c20aee5 1aeb480ecbd988cd8cc9/uploads/2023/06/2023-061151.pdf NA Kindly refer to the Business Rules of JoSAA Refer to the Link https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s313111c20aee5 1aeb480ccbd988cd8cc9/uploads/2023/06/2023 061151.pdf Kindly refer to the Business Rules of JoSAA Refer to the Link https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s313111c20aee51ael 80ecbd988cd8cc9/uploads/2023/06/2023 061151.pdf Page 5 of 8 Document Verification details"
8. CPIO stated that NIT is not a direct exam conducting body for admission of student, it is done through JoSSA (Joint Seat Allocation Authority, India) and relevant information pertaining to procedure for scrutinizing the documents submitted by candidates claiming quota are available in admission brochure and on the website of JoSSA which is self-explanatory. CPIO further apprised the Bench that it is only the 10th Standard and 12th Standard pass certificate of candidates which are considered for granting admission of State quota basis. CPIO volunteered to share a copy of his written statement along with total number of students against point No. 6 of RTI application in question.
Decision
9. Heard the parties.
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records noted that this case is a Complaint filed under Section 18(2) the RTI Act, 2005 where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011: AIR 2012 SC 864 wherein it was held as under:-
"...Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19.
This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as Page 6 of 8 early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden..."
11. The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon scrutiny of records, it is noted by the Commission that the CPIO has furnished timely response to the Complainant vide letter dated 18.06.2024 and again a revised updated reply was drafted by the CPIO vide letter dated 04.02.2026 which is self explanatory as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
12. There is no mala fide denial of information or otherwise is found on the part of CPIOs' in the instant case which calls for any action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, Commission relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 wherein it was held as under:
"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely. xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
13. In the light of above and considering the additional submission of CPIO during hearing that all the procedure of scrutiny, document verifications of students are conducted by JoSSA, procedure of which are contained in admission brochure and on their website answers the queries of the Complainant. Hence, at this juncture, the Commission finds no scope for intervention in the matter.
14. Nonetheless, the CPIO may fulfil his commitments of sharing revised updated reply with the Complainant as stated during hearing within reasonable time.
Page 7 of 8The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Karthik Khanna S. Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)