{"id":124277,"date":"2010-07-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-16T02:55:11","modified_gmt":"2016-05-15T21:25:11","slug":"mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Raj Pal Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr. Raj Pal Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 July, 2010<\/div>\n
                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n   Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000496 & 627 dated 23-4-2009 & 3-6-2009\n              Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\nAppellant:          Shri Rajpal Singh\nRespondent:         Union Public Service Commission, (UPSC)\n                Heard & Decision announced 29.7.2010\n\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
      These are two appeals moved by Shri Rajpal Singh of New Ashok Nagar,
\nDelhi seeking information regarding examination from the UPSC. The parties
\nbeing identical and the issue similar they have been clubbed together for hearing.\n<\/p>\n
File No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/00496
\n      In his application of 4-2-09 Shri Rajpal Singh has sought the following
\ninformation from CPIO, UPSC
\n      ‘1.    Reason of not short listing of me for the said interview.\n<\/p>\n
2.           If, the reasons is short of my MA degree with application
\nform, then why I was not called for interview provisionally.\n<\/p>\n
3.           Also provide a copy of the noting portion of
\nrepresentation submitted dated 21\/22 Jan 2009 addressed to
\nChairman\/ Secretary UPSC.”\n<\/p>\n
      To this he received a point-wise response from CPIO, Shri Ashok
\nMehta Dy. Secretary dated 24-8-09 informing him as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “Point No. 1.: You could not be short listed for interview
\n             because your application for the abovementioned post
\n             was incomplete.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Point No. 2: In the direct recruitment cases (through interview), it
\n             has been inter-alia made abundantly clear in the
\n             advertisement that no provisionally claim on any ground
\n             will be considered.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Point No. 3: Note portion of the File cannot be shared with
\n             applicant as these relates to functioning of core areas of
\n             the Commission and would harm the protected interest of
\n             the Commission. The same is exempted form disclosure
\n             under section 8 (i) (d) of the RTI Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Aggrieved with this information, appellant Shri Rajpal Singh then
\nmoved an appeal before Shri Nuruddin Ansari on 27-2-09 pleading as below:\n<\/p>\n
                                        1<\/span><\/p>\n
          “I requested to give me reason for not short listing me and it
\n         should be clear by give the reasons of not short listing. So,
\n         please give the reason on which grounds my application was
\n         incomplete with noting portion.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Upon this Shri Ansari in his order of 20-3-09 has allowed the appeal as
\nbelow:\n<\/p>\n
         “The CPIO, UPSC informed the appellant that he was not short
\n         listed for interview, as his application was incomplete. I find that
\n         this reply of the CPIO is not elaborate. To my mind, the reply to
\n         this should have been spelt out clearly as to on what account
\n         the application was found incomplete in order to satisfy the
\n         query of the appellant. With regard to the request for noting
\n         portion, the CPIO denied the same u\/s 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act,
\n         2005 holding that this relates to functioning of core areas of the
\n         Commission and would harm the protected interest of the
\n         Commission. Apparently, the appellant wanted to have copy of
\n         noting portion to know the fate of his representation referred to
\n         in para 3 above and in view of this I find that it requires a more
\n         convincing and satisfactory reply.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         In compliance with this order Shri Ashok Mehta, CPIO, UPSC has
\nprovided the following information to Shri Rajpal Singh dated 27-3-2009:\n<\/p>\n
         “1.    You could not be short-listed for interview for the above
\n                mentioned posts because your application was found
\n                incomplete as you did not submit Master’s Degree
\n                certificate along with your application form as proof in
\n                support of your essential educational qualification.
\n                Moreover, in the advertisement itself it was made
\n                abundantly clear that the candidates should attach with
\n                their application attested\/ self certified copies of the
\n                certificates including degree or diploma certificate in
\n                support of their educational qualification. If no copies of
\n                the requisite certificate are sent with the application, it is
\n                liable to be rejected and no appeal against its rejection
\n                will be entertained.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         2.     Your representation dated 15.1.2009 was considered in
\n                the Commission. However, your request for considering
\n                the documents submitted after the closing date could not
\n                be acceded to. The cut of date in the present matter was
\n                29.5.2008 and further in the advertisement it was clearly
\n                mentioned that if no copies of the certificates are sent
\n                with the application. It is liable to be rejected and no
\n                appeal against its rejection will be entertained. In view of
\n                this, the documents submitted by you at such a belated
\n                stage i.e. on 15.1.2009 could not be entertained. In view
\n                of this position, no formal reply was sent in response to<\/p>\n
                                          2<\/span>
\n               your representation dated 15.1.2009 and subsequent
\n              representation dated 21\/22 January, 2009<\/p>\n
File No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/00627
\n       This case is similar to the earlier one discussed above. In this case the
\ninformation sought by Shri Rajpal Singh from CPIO, UPSC in his application
\nreceived by the UPSC on 23-2-09 is as below:\n<\/p>\n
       “1.     In this recruitment process some of the candidates have
\n               been asked to submit the Employer certificate within 20
\n               days. Two candidates to whom I know are Mr. Ajay
\n               Kumar Tripathi and Mr. Rattan Singh. Please reply that
\n               why you ask them to fulfil the requirement i.e. submission
\n               of employer certificate and why I was not asked to submit
\n               the copy of the degree with statistics.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.             As per my earlier telephonic enquiry, the concerned
\ndealing hand said that as per new guidelines my candidature was
\ncancelled. Please supply me the copy of the new guidelines.\n<\/p>\n
3.             As per my earlier telephonic enquiry, the concerned
\ndealing hand said that as per new guidelines my candidature was
\ncancelled. Please give me reasons that in the same conditions why
\nsome candidates given a 20 days time to fulfil the deficiency found in
\ntheir applications.\n<\/p>\n
4.             Please give reason why you called candidates for
\ninterview in the recruitment of ADCO (T) in O\/o RGI, vide your file No.
\nF.1\/54\/2008-R.IV and why the new guidelines were not followed in the
\nsaid case. Two candidates to whom I know are Shan-E-Alam and Shri
\nVijendra Kumar who were provisionally called for the said interview on
\n12.2.2009.\n<\/p>\n
5.             Please tell me names of the candidates who called by the
\nCommission for the interview for the post of AD (Planning\/Statistics) in
\nGovt. of Delhi, and if you call them provisionally, why not given me and
\nother candidates a chance to call provisionally them too.\n<\/p>\n
6.             Is it not a violation of rules of natural justice not to give a
\nchance to the candidates before cancelling their candidatures?\n<\/p>\n
7.             Is it not the responsibility of the Commission to ask the
\ncandidates to fulfil the deficiency, whether committed by you or by the
\ncandidates, because there are chances that the copy of any document
\nmay be detached in the process of scrutiny etc by the Commission
\nalso.”\n<\/p>\n
       To this Shri Rajpal Singh received a response dated 13-3-09 from
\nCPIO, UPSC informing him point-wise as below:\n<\/p>\n
       “Point No. 1 & 3: Sh. Ajay Kumar Tripathi (Roll No. 32 and Shri
\n              Rattan Singh Roll No. 34 were required to submit a proof
\n              from their respective employer to the effect that they are
\n              regularly appointed Central Govt. Employee as on closing
\n              date i.e. 12.6.2008, in the respective recruitment case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
                This information is mandatory because it is not feasible
\n               for the candidates to submit on the date of submitting
\n               their applications which is apparently before the closing
\n               date.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Point   no. 2: In the direct recruitment cases (Through Interview)
\n               including the instant case, in the advertisement itself it
\n               has been inter-alia made abundantly clear that no
\n               provisionally on any ground will be considered.
\n      Point   no. 4: You did not submit the document that is a copy of
\n               the degree as required under Essential Qualification.
\n               Whereas other two candidates viz Shri Shan-E-Alam and
\n               Shri Vijendra Kumar were asked to submit the certificate
\n               in support of their claim that they have statistics in the
\n               Master’s Degree.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Point   No. 5: A total of 18 candidates have been called for
\n               interview. Out of these, four candidates have been called
\n               subject to the outcome of an OA filed in the CAT Principal
\n               Branch Delhi in connection with the respective
\n               recruitment case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Point   No. 6 & 7.: The decision was taken duly after scrutinising
\n               the respective applications as per prescribed procedure
\n               within the powers of the Commission and hence, question
\n               of violation of rules of natural justice does not arise.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Upon this Shri Rajpal Singh moved an appeal before Shri Nuruddin
\nAnsari disputing each of the answers provide by CPIO as below:\n<\/p>\n
      “Point No. 1 & 3: It is submitted that the criteria for clearance of
\n             provisionally should be equal for the all candidatures and
\n             should not be arbitrary and biased. Provisionally on any
\n             ground is provisionally. Moreover many candidates are
\n             provisionally interviewed as at the time of the interview
\n             they were not bringing with them Essential Qualifications
\n             certificates. Hence, the reply is unsatisfactory and
\n             incomplete.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Point No.2: In this para I sought a copy of the new guidelines,
\n             but the same was not provided to me. Hence, the reply is
\n             unsatisfactory, incomplete and showing the attitude of
\n             delaying the reply.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Point No. 4: In this para, reply was given to me that I did not
\n             attach a copy of the degree as required under the
\n             essential Qualification, but it crystal clear that Essential
\n             Qualification for the said post is Master’s Degree in
\n             Economics with Statistics. So, the Statistics is essential
\n             and to give a chance to clear the provisionally to other
\n             candidates, and not to me is not in the interest of justice,
\n             law and equity. Hence, the reply is unsatisfactory,
\n             incomplete and showing the attitude of delaying the reply.
\n      Point No. 5: In this para I sought the names of the candidates
\n             but was not supplied to me. Hence, the reply is<\/p>\n
                                       4<\/span>
\n             unsatisfacto5ry, incomplete and showing the attitude of
\n            delaying the reply.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Point No. 6 & 7: there is a gross violation of natural justice and
\n            equity as the Commission is summoning some
\n            candidates even they did not           fulfil the essential
\n            qualifications and experience criteria and on the other
\n            hand eligible candidates were not called. Hence, the
\n            reply is unsatisfactory, incomplete and showing the
\n            attitude of delaying the reply.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Shri Nuruddin Ansari in his order of 8-4-09 has allowed this appeal also
\ndirecting as below:\n<\/p>\n
      “The appellant through his original request had sought
\n      information on 7 points. I find from the reply of the CPIO that a
\n      point-wise clear reply has not been given to satisfy the queries
\n      of the appellant. The reply of the CPIO to point No.5 is silent in
\n      respect of request of the appellant to provide names of
\n      candidates called for interview.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In view of above, the appeal is remanded back to the CPIO to
\n      consider the case afresh and send a detailed clear point-wise
\n      satisfactory reply to the appellant within seven working days
\n      from the passing of the order.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In compliance with these directions CPIO Shri Baijal, Dy. Secretary has
\ninformed the appellant Shri Rajpal Singh as below:\n<\/p>\n
      “Point No. 1&3: Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi (Roll No. 32) and Shri
\n             Rattan Singh (Roll No. 34) were required to submit a
\n             proof from their respective employer to the effect that
\n             they a re regularly appointed Central Govt. Employee as
\n             on closing date i.e. 12.6.2008, in the respective
\n             recruitment case. It is not feasible for the candidates to
\n             submit this information on the date of submission of their
\n             applications which is apparently before the closing date.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Thus it is clear that the information sought from the above
\n            mentioned two candidates is different from the reasons
\n            for which your application in the subject case was
\n            declared incomplete i.e. for want of production of copy of
\n            degree in support of Essential Qualifications.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Point No. 2.: A copy of the respective advertisement of dated
\n             10.5.2008 vide which the instant case was advertised
\n             which includes the said guidelines of the Commission, is
\n             enclosed at ‘Annexure-I.’
\n      Point No. 4: You did not submit the document, that is, a copy of
\n             the degree as required under Essential Qualification.
\n             Whereas other two candidates viz Shri Shan-E-Alam and<\/p>\n
                                      5<\/span>
\n              Shri Vijendra Kumar were asked to submit the certificate
\n             in support of their claim that they have Statistics in the
\n             Master’s Degree.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Point no. 5: A total of 18 candidates have been called for
\n             interview as indicated in the list attached at ‘Annexure-II’
\n             for the posts of AD. (Planning\/Stat.) in Govt. of NCT of
\n             Delhi. None of these candidates were called provisionally.
\n             However four candidates have been called subject to the
\n             outcome of an OA filed in the CAT, Principal Bench,
\n             Delhi, in connection with the respective recruitment case.
\n       Point No. 6. The decision was taken duly after scrutinising the
\n             respective applications as per prescribed procedure
\n             within the powers of the Commission and hence, question
\n             of violation of rules of natural justice does not arise.
\n       Point No. 7.: The allegation made that there are chances that
\n             the copy of any documents may be detached in the
\n             process of scrutiny etc. by the Commission is false and
\n             baseless as in column 10 of part II of the application form
\n             the candidates are supposed to fill the details of
\n             enclosures with the application forms. As per the details
\n             filled by you, you had not enclosed the documents as
\n             mentioned in point 4 above.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Both appeals were heard on 29-7-2010. The following are present.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Appellant
\n       Shri R. P. Singh
\n       Respondents
\n       Shri Kamal Bhagat, JS (R-II)
\n       Shri P. P. Haldar, DS (R.V)<\/p>\n
       Appellant Shri Rajpal Singh submitted that he felt that he has been
\ndiscriminated against because others mentioned in his application were
\nallowed to appear in the examination provisionally whereas he was not.
\nRespondent Shri Kamal Bhagat, JS submitted that the difference between the
\nnames as mentioned and that of Shri Rajpal Singh was that in his case there
\nwas no copy of the M.A. certificate.       In the case of other candidates the
\ncopies were there and mere clarification had been sought as to whether
\nStatistics was a subject in their examination, which was a requirement for
\nrecruitment to the position.     Nevertheless, respondent Shri P.P. Haldar
\nconceded that the file noting referring to the specific request of appellant Shri
\nRajpal Singh alone, without disclosing matters concerning the core area of the
\nfunctioning of the UPSC, can be provided.\n<\/p>\n
                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
       We find that in both these cases the information that is held by the
\nUPSC has been provided except in one vital area and that was in providing
\ncopies of the noting in which the application of appellant has been discussed.
\nAs conceded in the hearing the UPSC has no objection to disclosing this
\ninformation now. Appellant Shri Rajpal Singh also conceded that through this
\nhe will be able to satisfy himself as to the bonafides of the reasoning for not
\nallowing him to sit provisionally for the examination. CPIO will, therefore,
\nprovide to Shri Rajpal Singh copies of the file noting which concerns his
\npetition within 10 working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
\nTo this extent the appeal is allowed. There will be no costs.\n<\/p>\n
       Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n29-7-2010<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of
\nthis Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n29-7-2010<\/p>\n
                                       7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr. Raj Pal Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 July, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000496 & 627 dated 23-4-2009 & 3-6-2009 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant: Shri Rajpal Singh Respondent: Union Public Service Commission, (UPSC) Heard & Decision announced 29.7.2010 FACTS These are two […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124277","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. Raj Pal Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Raj Pal Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-15T21:25:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Raj Pal Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-15T21:25:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2473,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr. Raj Pal Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-15T21:25:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Raj Pal Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr. Raj Pal Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Raj Pal Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-15T21:25:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Raj Pal Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-15T21:25:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010"},"wordCount":2473,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010","name":"Mr. Raj Pal Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-15T21:25:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-raj-pal-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-29-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Raj Pal Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 29 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124277","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124277"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124277\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124277"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124277"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124277"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}