{"id":142586,"date":"2010-05-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-03T08:29:36","modified_gmt":"2018-09-03T02:59:36","slug":"mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Chittaranjan Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr. Chittaranjan Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 May, 2010<\/div>\n
                     CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000978 dated 9.12.2009\n                  Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nAppellant       -        Shri Chittaranjan Kumar\nRespondent          -    Union Public Service Commission\n                        Heard & decision announced: 28.5.2010\n\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
         By an application of 26.6.09, Shri Chittaranjan Kumar of Vijay Nagar, Delhi
\napplied to the CPIO, UPSC seeking the following information:\n<\/p>\n
         “1.   I may kindly be provided a photo copy of my attendance
\n               sheet for Civil Services Main Examination, 2008.<\/p>\n
         2. I may kindly be provided photo copies of my attendance sheet,
\n               on which serial number of answer sheets also stands
\n               recorded for all subjects.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         3. I may be given in writing serial numbers of main answer sheets
\n               and additional answer sheets used by me for all subjects.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         4. I may be provided photo copies of main page of my all answer
\n               sheets for all subjects.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         To this, Shri Chittaranjan Kumar received a response pointwise dated
\n22.7.09 from CPIO Shri Prachish Khanna, informing him as follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “(i) Photocopy of your attendance-sheet for Civil Services (Main)
\n              Examination, 2008 is enclosed.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)          Sheet on which attendance during Civil Services (Main)
\nExamination, and serial number of answer book is mentioned is not
\navailable as the same has been destroyed\/ weeded out being beyond the
\nprescribed Record Retention period.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)         Details regarding serial number of Main Answer Book and
\nAdditional Answer books\/ sheets used in various papers of Civil Services
\n(Main) Examination, 2008 are as under: –\n<\/p>\n
        S. No. Subject               Sl. No. of Main Sl.      No.      of\n                                     answer book     Additional Answer\n                                                     sheet.\n        1.      Essay                3020801         No. Addl. Answer\n                                                     sheet is used.\n        2.      General studies-I 3147216            1433910\n        3.      General Studies-II 3177527           Two graph sheets\n                                                     used and no addl.\n\n\n                                           1<\/span>\n                                                      Answer sheet is\n                                                     used.\n       4.        English              3129811        No. Addl. Answer\n                 (Compulsory)                        sheet is used.\n       5.        Indian Language 3040993             Two special sheets\n                 (Compulsory_                        for pr\u00e9cis.\n       6.        History-I            3171702        155360\n       7.        History-II           3145168        172432         and\n                                                     1426613\n       8.        Hindi Literature-I   3184863        1080810        and\n                                                     1670052\n       9.        Hindi Literature-II 3031811         146690         and\n                                                     1869854\n<\/pre>\n
      However, it may be appreciated that culling out the above
\n      information required physical examining of the answer books which
\n      was diverted the already scare resources of Commission and may
\n      not be taken as precedence.\n<\/p>\n
      (iv)   As regards point (4), the photocopy of answer book cannot
\n             be given to the candidate. This issue has been deliberated
\n             in detail by the CIC and it has been held by CIC (Ref.\n<\/p>\n
             CIC\/OK\/A\/2006\/00058\/00066\/00315                         and
\n             CIC\/WB\/A\/006\/00469 & 00394 dated 23.6.2007 that in the
\n             case of, inter alia examinations conducted by UPSC which
\n             have an established system as fool proof as that can be, a
\n             citizen cannot seek disclosure of evaluated answer sheets
\n             under the RTI Act, 2005.         This has been reiterated
\n             subsequently in other decisions also. Besides, disclosure of
\n             first page of the answer book would reveal the identities of
\n             evaluators and concerned officials through their signatures
\n             and handwriting.        Hence, this information cannot be
\n             disclosed.’<\/p>\n
      Aggrieved, however, Shri Chittaranjan Kumar moved an appeal before
\nShri K.S. Bariar on 19.8.09, submitting, “there was not any photocopy sent by the
\nCommission.” He has concluded his appeal with the following plea:\n<\/p>\n
      “I just want to (know that) there was no alteration in coding and
\n      decoding. So sir you (are free to) cover the identities of evaluators
\n      and concerned official signature and marks also then furnished the
\n      photocopy of main page of my answer book.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Upon this, Shri K. S. Bariar Joint Secretary (E) in a detailed order of
\n8.10.09 has directed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
       “With regard to appellant’s complaint for non-receipt of photo copy
\n      of Attendance-sheet for the CS (Main) Examination, 2008 along
\n      with the aforesaid reply of the CPIO, UPSC, I direct hereby the
\n      CPIO, UPSC to send a copy of the same to him (the appellant)
\n      within 15 days of issue of this order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      With regard to appellant’s plea in respect of Para 2 (ii) of the
\n      CPIO’s reply for providing him the copy of the sheet on which
\n      attendance during the CS (Main) Examination and serial number of
\n      answer book is mentioned, it is stated that as already intimated by
\n      the CPIO, UPSC the above requested document has since been
\n      destroyed\/ weeded out due to it being beyond the prescribed
\n      Record Retention period. Since a document that no longer exists in
\n      the record of the Commission, it cannot be provided.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      With regard to appellant’s plea in respect of Para 2 (iii) (S. No. 6, 8
\n      & 9) of the CPIO’s reply, it is intimated that the appellant in his
\n      original RTI Application has sought for serial no. of main answer
\n      books and additional answer books used by him in the History
\n      Paper-1 of the CS (Main) Examination, 2008. Due to this reason
\n      the fact regarding additional map used by him in the above paper
\n      was not mentioned in the reply of the CPIO, UPSC. Now, it has
\n      been confirmed by the CPIO, UPSC that the map as used by the
\n      appellant in the above paper is intact and attached to main answer
\n      book and has been duly seen by the examiner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      It has further been confirmed by the CPIO, UPSC that the appellant
\n      in both Hindi Literature Paper- 1 & 11 of the above examination, the
\n      appellant has used 1 answer book and 2 additional answer book
\n      (and not 3 additional answer books as claimed by him in the instant
\n      appeal). All five questions attempted by the candidate in the above
\n      said papers as well as History paper-1, has been evaluated by the
\n      concerned examiners and all the answer books used by him are
\n      intact.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      With regard to appellant’s plea to provide him the photocopy of his
\n      answer books of the above examination, it is intimated that the
\n      reply given by the CPIO, UPSC is factual and appropriate and there
\n      is nothing that requires to be interceded to at the appellate state in
\n      the matter.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The appeal was thus allowed only to the limited extent of supply of
\ninformation said to have been missed out. Appellant Shri Chittaranjan Kumar has
\nmoved a second appeal before us with the following prayer :\n<\/p>\n
                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
       “1.   I may kindly be provided photo copies of my attendance
\n            sheet, on which serial number of answer sheets also
\n            stands recorded for all subjects.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2. I may be provided photocopies of main page of my all
\n            answer sheets for all subjects.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3.    Action be taken against concerned officers for providing
\n            wrong information.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The case was listed for hearing on 30.4.10. However, the CPIO UPSC
\nrequested an adjournment through a letter of 27.4.10 since the appeal notice had
\nbeen received by him only on that date. Although an adjournment was in fact
\ngiven for 28.5.10, because appellant could not be contacted, we have
\nsubsequently received an undated representation from appellant pleading “Since
\nUPSC is depriving me of my legal rights by providing false information, I may
\nkindly be provided an early hearing to protect my legal rights, for which I will
\nremain highly obliged.” The appeal was then heard on 28.5.10. The following are
\npresent:\n<\/p>\n
      Appellant
\n            Shri Chittaranjan Kumar
\n            Shri Prashant Kumar Sahi
\n            Shri Pramod Kumar
\n      Respondents
\n            Shri Prachish Khanna, Dy. Secy. & CPIO
\n            Shri D. P. Arora, Consultant
\n            Shri Naresh Kaushik, Advocate
\n            Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Advocate
\n            Shri Aditya Vikram, Advocate<\/p>\n
The following were also present as observers:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Shri Ravindra Mohan Sharma
\n             Shri Ashish Gupta
\n             Shri Sachin
\n             Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh
\n             Shri Pramod Kumar
\n             Shri Guddu
\n      Learned Counsel for respondents, Shri Naresh Kaushik, presented a
\nwritten statement on behalf of respondents.     Shri Chittaranjan Kumar in his
\nwritten statement of 18.5.10 to the PIO, UPSC has submitted, as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
            “The High Court in its decision in the case “Sanjay Singh vs. UPSC
\n           has quoted a book, written by Shri Edwin Harper, which has been
\n           referred to by the UPSC. I may kindly be provided a copy of the
\n           same.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Appellant was willing to forgo his request to be shown his original answer
\nsheets in line with the decision of this Commission              in Complaint    No.
\nCIC\/WB\/C2006\/00223; Appeal Nos. CIC\/WB\/A\/2006\/00469; & 00394 ;Appeal
\nNos. CIC\/OK\/A\/2006\/00266\/00058\/00066\/00315 Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh &
\nOrs vs. Central Board of Secondary Education, & Ors, the<\/a> thrust of
\nappellant’s argument is, however, a plea that he should be provided the
\nattendance sheet that he had asked for. In this case this Commission in its
\nDecision of 23.4.’07, which still stands, has held as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           39.    In regard to public examinations conducted by institutions
\n           established by the Constitution like UPSC1 or institutions
\n           established by any enactment by the Parliament or Rules made
\n           there under like CBSE, Staff Selection Commission, Universities.,
\n           etc, the function of which is mainly to conduct examinations and
\n           which have an established system as fool-proof as that can be,
\n           and which, by their own rules or regulations prohibit disclosure of
\n           evaluated answer sheets or where the disclosure of evaluated
\n           answer sheets would result in rendering the system unworkable in
\n           practice and on the basis of the rationale followed by the Supreme
\n           Court in the above two cases, we would like to put at rest the
\n           matter of disclosure of answer sheets. We therefore decide that in
\n           such cases, a citizen cannot seek disclosure of the evaluated
\n           answer sheets under the RTI Act, 2005.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           But the thrust of appellant’s argument is, however, a plea that he should
\nbe provided the attendance sheet that he had asked for. Learned Counsel Shri
\nNaresh Kaushik in his written statement, on the other hand, has, argued along
\nthe line that he has reiterated in the hearing, as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       “It is pertinent to point out here that there are two types of
\n       attendance sheets:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1.            Attendance sheet on which Sl. No. of answer book and
\nsignature of the candidate is recorded called proforma ‘F’ in the
\ncommission is specific to a session of examination for all candidates the
\nretention period for this type of attendance sheet is six months.\n<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
    Emphasised by us in relevance to present appeal<\/p>\n
                                                      5<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 2.           The attendance sheet on which each candidate puts his\/ her
\nsignature on each session on the day of examination is specific for the
\ncandidate. The retention period of this type of attendance sheet is two
\nyears.\n<\/p>\n
      That the appellant had sought information with respect to the type
\n      (1) and Shri Pramod Kumar had sought the information regarding
\n      type (2), therefore, the appellant’s claim that wrong information was
\n      supplied to him is not only baseless but also vexatious in its spirit
\n      and is aimed at maligning this examination conducting body.\n<\/p>\n
      That the appellant has intentionally, deceitfully and fraudulently not
\n      annexed the letter of the UPSC, which clarifies the aforementioned
\n      position, vide its letter 13.11.2009. That this fact alone expos\u00e9s
\n      appellant’s malicious intent entirely, that how the appellant is bent
\n      upon maligning the UPSC, and how he seeks to misdirect the court
\n      into believing something which is not true and which is within his
\n      knowledge.”\n<\/p>\n
      The letter of 13.11.09 referred to above, CPIO Shri Prachish Khanna was
\nin compliance with the orders of the Appellate Authority informing appellant Shri
\nChittaranjan Kumar, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “it is to inform you that there are two types of attendance sheets.
\n      While attendance sheet (1) on which Sl. No. of answer book and
\n      signature of the candidate is recorded (called Proforma ‘F’ in
\n      Commission) is specific to a session of examination for all
\n      candidates, the attendance sheet (2) on which each candidate put
\n      his \/ her signature on each session on the day of examination is
\n      specific to the candidate. While the retention period of attendance
\n      sheet (1) is 6 months, the retention period of attendance sheet (2)
\n      is 2 years. A copy of your attendance sheet has again been sent to
\n      you vide letter of even number dated 21.10.09.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In this context, learned Counsel Shri Naresh Kaushik has in his written
\nstatement submitted as below:\n<\/p>\n
      “I note that the CPIO, UPSC in his submissions (comments) to the
\n      undersigned has stated that in the Civil Services (Main)
\n      examination, there are two types of attendance sheet each having
\n      its own and distinct retention period.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      From the above submissions and clarifications of the CPIO, UPSC,
\n      it is evident that no wrong information with regard to appellant’s
\n      above RTI application has been given by him. Since the appellant<\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span>
\n        may not be aware of exact nomenclature (Proforma ‘F’) and
\n       difference between these different documents (Attendance sheet\/
\n       list) and may be misconstruing and relating the information
\n       (supplied to him) with that given to the above stated other applicant
\n       by the CPIO, UPSC, in the inters of clarity and transparency of the
\n       information, however, I observe that it would be appropriate on
\n       party of the CPIO, UPSC that the above facts are also clarified and
\n       conveyed to him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       I, therefore, direct the CPIO, UPSC to supply a self-explanatory
\n       information (with retention period of each of the above documents)
\n       to the appellant within 15 days of issue of this order.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       He has then gone on to quote from the order of 13.11.’09 and annexed the
\ntrue copy of the appellate authority’s order dated 9th November, 2009 This also
\nclearly lays down the retention period for such documents, as asked for,
\ncontending that such information as is held by respondents has, therefore, been
\nprovided to appellant Shri Chittaranjan Kumar, which is why, according to
\nrespondents his representations are frivolous.\n<\/p>\n
                               DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
       Having heard the arguments of both parties and examined the records, we
\nmust come to the conclusion that as mandated by Sec. 2(j), such documents, as
\nheld by respondents UPSC and permissible for disclosure, have indeed been
\nprovided to Appellant Shri Chittaranjan Kumar. On the question of disclosure of
\nanswer sheets, appellant Shri Chittaranjan Kumar has clarified that what he was
\nkeen to know was the details of the attendance registers to make sure that the
\nattendance had been in fact marked truthfully. Wee must therefore conclude that
\nthere remains no substance in the appeal<\/p>\n
       On the other hand, we cannot accept the accusation of respondents that
\nthe application of appellant Shri Chittaranjan Kumar is deceitful and fraudulent. It
\ncan indeed be a matter of satisfaction for respondents that in all cases, where the
\nCommission has intervened to inspect records to determine their authenticity,<\/p>\n
                                         7<\/span>
\n when petitioners had questioned the same, the authenticity has invariably been
\nestablished but, to retain that public confidence in this apex institution it is also
\nnecessary that such authenticity remain under close public scrutiny in order to
\nensure that it always retains the highest levels of veracity. Young persons like
\nthe appellant in the present case, the principal clients of the UPSC thus must
\nexercise their right to question whenever in doubt in matters that concerns their
\nown future in the service of the nation. This is no cause for concern but instead
\nan opportunity to demonstrate the integrity of the institutional framework. While,
\ntherefore, the appeal, being without substance, is dismissed, the above
\nobservations may be noted by the respondents whose very name is assertive of
\nservice to the public.\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
\n28.5.2010<\/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
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n28.5.2010<\/p>\n
                                         8<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr. Chittaranjan Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 May, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000978 dated 9.12.2009 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant – Shri Chittaranjan Kumar Respondent – Union Public Service Commission Heard & decision announced: 28.5.2010 Facts : By an application of 26.6.09, Shri […]<\/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-142586","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. Chittaranjan Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 May, 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-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Chittaranjan Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-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=\"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-03T02:59:36+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-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Chittaranjan Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-03T02:59:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2389,\"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-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr. Chittaranjan Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-03T02:59:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Chittaranjan Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 May, 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. Chittaranjan Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 May, 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-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Chittaranjan Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-03T02:59:36+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-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Chittaranjan Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-03T02:59:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010"},"wordCount":2389,"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-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010","name":"Mr. Chittaranjan Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-03T02:59:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chittaranjan-kumar-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Chittaranjan Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 28 May, 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\/142586","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=142586"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142586\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}