{"id":131848,"date":"2010-04-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-16T22:25:12","modified_gmt":"2015-04-16T16:55:12","slug":"mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 April, 2010<\/div>\n
                             Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\n\n                                                                                              CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/001686\n                                                                                              CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/001681\n\n\n                                                                                                 Dated\u00a0April\u00a030,\u00a02010\n\n\n\nName\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant                                    :    Shri\u00a0Rakesh\u00a0Kumar\n\n\nName\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Public\u00a0Authority                             :    DRM\u00a0Office\n                                                              North\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0Ajmer\n\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n
Case\u00a0No.CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/001686<\/p>\n
1.     The\u00a0Applicant\u00a0filed\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00a0application\u00a0dt.3.6.09\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0DRM\u00a0Office,\u00a0North\u00a0Western\u00a0<\/p>\n
       Railway,\u00a0Ajmer.\u00a0                He\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0had\u00a0submitted\u00a0an\u00a0application\u00a0for\u00a0permission\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
       appear\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0RRB\u00a0Examination\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0conducted\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0post\u00a0of\u00a0clerk\u00a0cum\u00a0Typist.\u00a0\u00a0While\u00a0<\/p>\n
       seeking\u00a0the\u00a0NOC\u00a0for\u00a0Jr.Clerk\u00adcum\u00adTypist,\u00a0he\u00a0was\u00a0asked\u00a0to\u00a0resign\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0post\u00a0<\/p>\n
       i.e.\u00a0Asstt.\u00a0Khallasi.\u00a0 \u00a0As\u00a0he\u00a0did\u00a0not\u00a0receive\u00a0the\u00a0reply\u00a0in\u00a0connection\u00a0with\u00a0permission\u00a0for\u00a0<\/p>\n
       appearing \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 RRB \u00a0 examination, \u00a0 he \u00a0 submitted \u00a0 another \u00a0 application \u00a0 dt.2.4.09, \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
       information\u00a0regarding\u00a0which\u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0been\u00a0received\u00a0by\u00a0him\u00a0till\u00a027.5.09.\u00a0He\u00a0also\u00a0requested\u00a0<\/p>\n
       the\u00a0PIO\u00a0to\u00a0add\u00a0years\u00a0of\u00a0service\u00a0of\u00a0present\u00a0post\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0post\u00a0of\u00a0Jr.Clerk\u00adcum\u00adTypist\u00a0as\u00a0both\u00a0<\/p>\n
       the \u00a0 services\u00a0 are \u00a0 related \u00a0to \u00a0 NWR\u00a0 and \u00a0 if \u00a0 it \u00a0 is\u00a0 not \u00a0done \u00a0 so, \u00a0 to \u00a0 list \u00a0 out \u00a0 the \u00a0 rules\u00a0 in \u00a0 this\u00a0<\/p>\n
       connection.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO\u00a0replied\u00a0on\u00a011.6.09\u00a0stating\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0had\u00a0not\u00a0obtained\u00a0NOC\u00a0<\/p>\n
       before\u00a0applying\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0examination\u00a0and\u00a0it\u00a0was\u00a0only\u00a0close\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0examination\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
       application\u00a0was\u00a0submitted.\u00a0\u00a0With\u00a0regard\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a02nd\u00a0point,\u00a0he\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0letter\u00a0dt.2.4.09\u00a0<\/p>\n
       had\u00a0not\u00a0been\u00a0received\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0office.\u00a0Not\u00a0satisfied\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0reply,\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0filed\u00a0an\u00a0<\/p>\n
       appeal\u00a0dt.22.6.09\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0stating\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0clerk\u00a0had\u00a0entered\u00a0details\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
       the\u00a0application\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0register\u00a0and\u00a0had\u00a0also\u00a0given\u00a0the\u00a0File\u00a0No.\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0had\u00a0himself\u00a0<\/p>\n
       gone\u00a0and\u00a0submitted\u00a0the\u00a0application\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0person\u00a0recommended\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0clerk\u00a0ie.\u00a0with\u00a0<\/p>\n
       Ms. \u00a0 Neena \u00a0 \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 office \u00a0 in \u00a0 Ajmer \u00a0 responsible \u00a0 for \u00a0 \u00a0 forwarding \u00a0 the \u00a0 application \u00a0 to \u00a0 the\u00a0
\n       Railway\u00a0Board.\u00a0Shri\u00a0Prakash\u00a0Bhutani,\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0replied\u00a0on\u00a021.7.09\u00a0enclosing\u00a0<\/p>\n
      the\u00a0reply\u00a0dt.21.7.09\u00a0provided\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0nodal\u00a0officer\u00a0stating\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0signature\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0copy\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
      the\u00a0application\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0that\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0clerk\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0in\u00a0his\u00a0first\u00a0appeal,\u00a0he\u00a0is\u00a0now\u00a0seeking\u00a0<\/p>\n
      information \u00a0 about \u00a0 the \u00a0 transfer \u00a0which \u00a0 he \u00a0 had \u00a0not \u00a0 sought \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 RTI \u00a0 application. \u00a0 Being\u00a0<\/p>\n
      aggrieved\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0reply,\u00a0applicant\u00a0filed\u00a0a\u00a0second\u00a0appeal\u00a0dt.14.10.09\u00a0before\u00a0CIC.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Case\u00a0No.CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/001681<\/p>\n
2.    The \u00a0 Applicant \u00a0 filed \u00a0 his \u00a0 RTI \u00a0 application \u00a0 dt.13.5.09 \u00a0 with \u00a0 the \u00a0 PIO, \u00a0 DRM \u00a0 Office, \u00a0 North\u00a0<\/p>\n
      Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0Ajmer\u00a0seeking\u00a0information\u00a0against\u00a03\u00a0points\u00a0with\u00a0regard\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0rest\u00a0days\u00a0<\/p>\n
      provided \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 coach \u00a0 attendant \u00a0 and \u00a0 non\u00adallotment \u00a0 of \u00a0 quarters. \u00a0 The \u00a0 PIO \u00a0 replied \u00a0 on\u00a0<\/p>\n
      29.5.09 \u00a0 stating \u00a0 that \u00a0 as \u00a0 per \u00a0 the \u00a0 available \u00a0 records \u00a0 the \u00a0 employees \u00a0 working \u00a0 as \u00a0 coach\u00a0<\/p>\n
      attendants\u00a0have\u00a0been\u00a0given\u00a0two\u00a0days\u00a0as\u00a0well\u00a0as\u00a0three\u00a0days\u00a0rest.\u00a0\u00a0Hence\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0correct\u00a0<\/p>\n
      to\u00a0say\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0employees\u00a0were\u00a0given\u00a0only\u00a0two\u00a0days\u00a0rest\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0past.\u00a0 \u00a0With\u00a0regard\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
      quarters, \u00a0 he\u00a0 stated \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 Applicant \u00a0 had\u00a0 \u00a0 applied \u00a0 for\u00a0 quarters\u00a0 on \u00a0 1.10.07 \u00a0 and \u00a0 from\u00a0<\/p>\n
      1.10.07 \u00a0 to \u00a0 3.2.09, \u00a0 there \u00a0 was \u00a0 no \u00a0 vacancy \u00a0 and \u00a0 after \u00a0 4.2.09, \u00a0 quarter \u00a0 No.2147\/A \u00a0 was\u00a0<\/p>\n
      vacated. \u00a0 \u00a0 The \u00a0 Housing \u00a0 Committee \u00a0 vide \u00a0 letter \u00a0 dt.10.2.05 \u00a0 had \u00a0 issued \u00a0 orders \u00a0 that\u00a0<\/p>\n
      assessment\u00a0may\u00a0be\u00a0made\u00a0as\u00a0per\u00a0requirement\u00a0of\u00a0facility\u00a0and\u00a0employees\u00a0may\u00a0be\u00a0asked\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
      submit \u00a0 their \u00a0 new \u00a0 option \u00a0 for \u00a0 quarter \u00a0 facility \u00a0 allotment. \u00a0 \u00a0 For \u00a0 the \u00a0 information \u00a0 of \u00a0 all \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
      employees\u00a0the\u00a0copy\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0letter\u00a0was\u00a0pastd\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0notice\u00a0board\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0names\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
      employees \u00a0 who \u00a0 had \u00a0 submitted \u00a0 their \u00a0 option \u00a0 \u00a0 have \u00a0 been \u00a0 enrolled \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 waiting \u00a0 list \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n
      allotment\u00a0of\u00a0quarters\u00a0but\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0submitted\u00a0any\u00a0option\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0regard.\u00a0Hence\u00a0<\/p>\n
      he\u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0been\u00a0allotted\u00a0any\u00a0quarter.\u00a0Not\u00a0satisfied\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0reply,\u00a0the\u00a0applicant\u00a0filed\u00a0an\u00a0<\/p>\n
      appeal\u00a0dt.22.6.09\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority.\u00a0Shri\u00a0Prakash\u00a0Bhutani,\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0<\/p>\n
      replied \u00a0 on \u00a0 20.7.09 \u00a0 enclosing \u00a0 the \u00a0 information \u00a0 dt.17.7.09 \u00a0 furnished \u00a0 by \u00a0 Sr.DEE. \u00a0 Being\u00a0<\/p>\n
      aggrieved\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0reply,\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0filed\u00a0a\u00a0second\u00a0appeal\u00a0dt.Nil\u00a0before\u00a0CIC.<\/p>\n
3.    The\u00a0Bench\u00a0of\u00a0Mrs.\u00a0Annapurna\u00a0Dixit,\u00a0Information\u00a0Commissioner,\u00a0scheduled\u00a0the\u00a0hearing\u00a0<\/p>\n
      for\u00a0April\u00a030,\u00a02010.\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    Shri\u00a0S.M.Johry,\u00a0PIO\u00a0and\u00a0Shri\u00a0P.S.Chouhan,\u00a0Sr.PI\u00a0represented\u00a0the\u00a0Public\u00a0Authority.\n<\/p>\n
      5.      The\u00a0Applicant\u00a0was\u00a0present\u00a0during\u00a0the\u00a0hearing.\n<\/p>\n
     Decision<\/p>\n
     CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/001686<\/p>\n
     6.      The\u00a0Respondent\u00a0submitted\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0\u00a0had\u00a0not\u00a0followed\u00a0the\u00a0normal\u00a0procedure\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
             approaching\u00a0the\u00a0Railway\u00a0Board\u00a0for\u00a0permission\u00a0for\u00a0appearing\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0exam\u00a0 \u00a0through\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
             concerned\u00a0office\u00a0in\u00a0Ajmer\u00a0which\u00a0forwards\u00a0such\u00a0requests\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Railway\u00a0Board\u00a0and\u00a0had\u00a0<\/p>\n
             instead \u00a0 applied \u00a0 for \u00a0 permission \u00a0 directly \u00a0 to \u00a0 \u00a0 Railway \u00a0 Board. \u00a0 \u00a0 He \u00a0 also \u00a0 stated \u00a0 that \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
             Appellant’s\u00a0letter\u00a0written\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0concerned\u00a0Ajmer\u00a0office\u00a0a\u00a0few\u00a0days\u00a0\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0exam,\u00a0for\u00a0<\/p>\n
             permission\u00a0to\u00a0appear\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0exam\u00a0had\u00a0not\u00a0been\u00a0received\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0office.\u00a0The\u00a0Appellant,\u00a0<\/p>\n
             however,\u00a0refuted\u00a0this\u00a0statement\u00a0and\u00a0\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0has\u00a0a\u00a0receipt\u00a0signed\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0clerk\u00a0Ms.\u00a0<\/p>\n
             Neena\u00a0who\u00a0is\u00a0posted\u00a0at\u00a0the\u00a0Ajmer\u00a0office,\u00a0 \u00a0The\u00a0Respondent,\u00a0however,\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0believed\u00a0that\u00a0it\u00a0<\/p>\n
             was\u00a0not\u00a0the\u00a0signature\u00a0of\u00a0Ms.\u00a0Neena.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0Appellant\u00a0argued\u00a0that\u00a0even\u00a0if\u00a0the\u00a0first\u00a0letter\u00a0had\u00a0<\/p>\n
             not\u00a0been\u00a0received\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0office,\u00a0his\u00a0second\u00a0letter\u00a0had\u00a0been\u00a0received\u00a0by\u00a0them\u00a0along\u00a0with\u00a0<\/p>\n
             the\u00a0copy\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0first\u00a0letter\u00a0requesting\u00a0for\u00a0permission\u00a0and\u00a0hence\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0is\u00a0very\u00a0well\u00a0aware\u00a0<\/p>\n
             of\u00a0his\u00a0request\u00a0and\u00a0had\u00a0given\u00a0wrong\u00a0information\u00a0when\u00a0he\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0first\u00a0letter\u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0<\/p>\n
             been\u00a0received\u00a0by\u00a0him.\u00a0The\u00a0Respondent\u00a0 \u00a0admitted\u00a0to\u00a0having\u00a0received\u00a0the\u00a0request\u00a0letter\u00a0<\/p>\n
             along\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant’s\u00a0second\u00a0letter\u00a0and\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0information\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0regard\u00a0has\u00a0<\/p>\n
             already\u00a0been\u00a0furnished\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0issue\u00a0at\u00a0this\u00a0stage\u00a0is\u00a0whether\u00a0the\u00a0fist\u00a0letter\u00a0<\/p>\n
             was\u00a0received\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0office\u00a0or\u00a0not\u00a0ie.\u00a0whether\u00a0the\u00a0handwriting\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0receipt\u00a0\u00a0is\u00a0that\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0Ms.\u00a0<\/p>\n
             Neena\u00a0\u00a0as\u00a0contended\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0or\u00a0that\u00a0of\u00a0someone\u00a0else.\u00a0<\/p>\n
     \u00a0<\/p>\n
7.           The \u00a0 Commission \u00a0 after \u00a0 hearing \u00a0 the \u00a0 submissions \u00a0 of \u00a0 both \u00a0 sides \u00a0 directs \u00a0 the \u00a0 PIO \u00a0 under\u00a0<\/p>\n
     Section\u00a018(2)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0act,\u00a0to\u00a0hold\u00a0an\u00a0enquiry\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0participation\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0\u00a0and\u00a0also\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
     a\u00a0handwriting\u00a0expert\u00a0to\u00a0ascertain\u00a0 \u00a0whether\u00a0the\u00a0application\u00a0submitted\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0is\u00a0that\u00a0of\u00a0
\n Ms.\u00a0Neena\u00a0or\u00a0not\u00a0and\u00a0where\u00a0the\u00a0application\u00a0is\u00a0lying\u00a0at\u00a0this\u00a0point\u00a0of\u00a0time.\u00a0Based\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0outcome\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
the\u00a0enquiry,\u00a0appropriate\u00a0disciplinary\u00a0action\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0taken\u00a0\u00a0against\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0or\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0,\u00a0under\u00a0<\/p>\n
intimation\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Commission.\u00a0The\u00a0exercise\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0completed\u00a0by\u00a05\u00a0June,\u00a02010.<\/p>\n
CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/001681<\/p>\n
8.      The\u00a0Commission\u00a0after\u00a0reviewing\u00a0the\u00a0documents\u00a0on\u00a0record\u00a0and\u00a0after\u00a0hearing\u00a0both\u00a0sides,\u00a0<\/p>\n
        directs\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0the\u00a0copy\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0rule\u00a0regarding\u00a0rest\u00a0days\u00a0allowed\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0coach\u00a0<\/p>\n
        attendants\u00a0and\u00a0also\u00a0to\u00a0allow\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0for\u00a0inspection\u00a0of\u00a0records\u00a0dealing\u00a0with\u00a0 \u00a0rest\u00a0<\/p>\n
        days\u00a0 \u00a0availed\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0and\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0him\u00a0with\u00a0attested\u00a0copies\u00a0of\u00a0documents\u00a0<\/p>\n
        identified\u00a0by\u00a0him,\u00a0free\u00a0of\u00a0cost\u00a0by\u00a05.6.10.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.      The\u00a0appeals\u00a0are\u00a0\u00a0accordingly\u00a0disposed\u00a0of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                (Annapurna\u00a0Dixit)
\n                                                                       Information\u00a0Commissioner
\nAuthenticated\u00a0true\u00a0copy:\n<\/p>\n
(G.Subramanian)
\nDeputy.\u00a0Registrar<\/p>\n
Cc:\n<\/p>\n
1.      Shri\u00a0Rakesh\u00a0Kumar
\n        S\/o\u00a0Shri\u00a0sukhlal
\n        Uday\u00a0Mandir\u00a0Maliyon\u00a0Ki\u00a0Gali
\n        Seduram\u00a0Ji\u00a0Ki\u00a0Haveli
\n        Jodhpur\u00a0342\u00a0006<\/p>\n
2.      The\u00a0PIO
\n        North\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway
\n        Divisional\u00a0Railway\u00a0Manager’s\u00a0Office
\n        Ajmer\u00a0Division
\n      Ajmer<\/p>\n
3.   The\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority
\n     North\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway
\n     Divisional\u00a0Railway\u00a0Manager’s\u00a0Office
\n     Ajmer\u00a0Division
\n     Ajmer<\/p>\n
4.   Officer\u00a0incharge,\u00a0NIC<\/p>\n
5.   Press\u00a0E\u00a0Group,\u00a0CIC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 April, 2010 Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/001686 CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/001681 Dated\u00a0April\u00a030,\u00a02010 Name\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant : Shri\u00a0Rakesh\u00a0Kumar Name\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Public\u00a0Authority : DRM\u00a0Office North\u00a0Western\u00a0Railway,\u00a0Ajmer Background Case\u00a0No.CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/001686 1. The\u00a0Applicant\u00a0filed\u00a0his\u00a0RTI\u00a0application\u00a0dt.3.6.09\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0DRM\u00a0Office,\u00a0North\u00a0Western\u00a0 Railway,\u00a0Ajmer.\u00a0 He\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0had\u00a0submitted\u00a0an\u00a0application\u00a0for\u00a0permission\u00a0to\u00a0 appear\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0RRB\u00a0Examination\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0conducted\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0post\u00a0of\u00a0clerk\u00a0cum\u00a0Typist.\u00a0\u00a0While\u00a0 seeking\u00a0the\u00a0NOC\u00a0for\u00a0Jr.Clerk\u00adcum\u00adTypist,\u00a0he\u00a0was\u00a0asked\u00a0to\u00a0resign\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0present\u00a0post\u00a0 i.e.\u00a0Asstt.\u00a0Khallasi.\u00a0 \u00a0As\u00a0he\u00a0did\u00a0not\u00a0receive\u00a0the\u00a0reply\u00a0in\u00a0connection\u00a0with\u00a0permission\u00a0for\u00a0 appearing \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 RRB \u00a0 examination, \u00a0 he \u00a0 submitted \u00a0 another \u00a0 application \u00a0 dt.2.4.09, \u00a0 the\u00a0 […]<\/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-131848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 April, 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-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-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=\"2010-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-16T16:55:12+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=\"6 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-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-16T16:55:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1130,\"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-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr.Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-16T16:55:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 April, 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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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.Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 April, 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-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-16T16:55:12+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-16T16:55:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010"},"wordCount":1130,"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-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010","name":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-16T16:55:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rakesh-kumar-vs-ministry-of-railways-on-30-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Rakesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Railways on 30 April, 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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/131848","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=131848"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131848\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}