{"id":143939,"date":"2010-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-04-19T01:02:24","modified_gmt":"2017-04-18T19:32:24","slug":"mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr. A T Daryani vs Union Public Service Commission on 27 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr. A T Daryani vs Union Public Service Commission on 27 September, 2010<\/div>\n
                  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n              Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000704 dated 15-7-2009\n                Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\nAppellant:          Shri A. T. Daryani\nRespondent:         Supreme Court of India (SCI)\n                                                     Appeal heard 24. 9. 2010\n                                                Decision announced 27.9.2010\n\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
      By an application of 27.10.2006 Shri A. T. Daryani of Shivalik, New Delhi
\napplied to the UPSC seeking the following information:\n<\/p>\n
       “In the light of the RTI Act, I may be provided a certified copy of
\n      confidential correspondence with assurance sent to the Min. of
\n      Finance under your letter F. No. \/\/15 (29)\/2002-AP2, the requisite
\n      fee of Rs. 10\/- is paid vide cash receipt dated 27.10.96.’<\/p>\n
      To this appellant Shri A. T. Daryani received a response dated 1.11.2006
\nfrom CPIO Shri A. K. Dash, Jt. Secretary informing him as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        “The Commission have taken up the issue with DOP&T for
\n      providing exemption under section 8 (1) of the RTI Act against
\n      disclosure of records, information and procedures, the disclosure of
\n      which would compromise the objectivity or fairness of testing or
\n      examination process, or processes to determine individual
\n      suitability, eligibility for appointment or promotion in Central\/ State
\n      Government services\/ post. Pending a decision in this regard by
\n      the govt. the Commission have taken a policy decision that such
\n      sensitive information including minutes of DPC and Assessment
\n      Sheets containing the grading may not be shared with the
\n      applicants. Further, it has been held by the CIC in several cases of
\n      appeal that disclosure of complete proceedings in the DPC and
\n      grades given by officers to their subordinates may lead to
\n      disclosure of the ACRs and as ACRs themselves are barred from
\n      disclosure, by inference the DPC proceedings should be similarly
\n      barred.’<\/p>\n
      It was only on 20.1.2009 that appellant Shri Daryani then moved his first
\nappeal with the following payer:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       “Sh. A. K. Dash, Jt. Sec. UPSC vide his letter F.2\/15(12)\/2006-AP-
\n      2 dated 1.11.2006 had forwarded my request to Deputy Sec &<\/p>\n
                                         1<\/span>
\n        CPIO, Min. Of Finance and requested me to await the information
\n       from him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       It is more than two years that I have neither received any reply from
\n       UPSC nor Min. Of Finance. I fail to understand as to why the
\n       CPIO, UPSC preferred to forward my request to CPIO\/ Dy. Sec.
\n       Min. Of Finance when the request pertained to UPSC file.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       I herewith appeal to you, Sir, to direct the CPIO, UPSC to look into
\n       my complaint and send me the required information since I made a
\n       request to CPIO, UPSC.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In response the CPIO, UPSC, by then Shri S. C. Srivastava, Under
\nSecretary, in his letter of 12.2.2009 provided the following information:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        “It is stated that there are a total of 12 pages of the minutes of the
\n       DPC held on 5.9.2003 for which a sum of Rs. 24\/- may please be
\n       deposited with the Accounts Officer, UPSC in any mode of payment
\n       prescribed in the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost)
\n       rules, 2005, before the same are provided to you.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       This amount was paid and the information provided but appellant Shri
\nDaryani moved an appeal on 20.1.2009 of which we have no copy of record but
\nregarding which Appellate Authority Shri Rajiv Srivastava had noted as follows in
\nhis order of 28.4.2009:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        “The appellant preferred present appeal dated 19.2.2009 to the
\n       Appellate Authority, UPSC stating that the CPIO, UPSC has
\n       violated sub-section 3 (a) of section 7 of RTI Act by forwarding his
\n       request dated 27.10.2006 to Ministry of Finance and forgot to reply
\n       within the prescribed time under the Act. He has requested to fix
\n       the responsibility for violation of section 7 of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In this order in appeal Shri Rajiv Srivastava JS (J&V) has held as follows:-
\n        “When the CPIO transferred the application dated 27.10.2006 of
\n       the appellant, a proposal of the Commission was pending before
\n       the DOP&T for exemption under section 8 (1) of the RTI act.
\n       Pending decision of the DOP&T in this regard, the Commission had
\n       taken a decision not to disclose such record under RTI Act.
\n       Therefore, the CPIO, UPSC had furnished the factual position as
\n       on that date to the appellant by endorsing a copy of the letter
\n       addressed to the CPIO, Ministry of Finance. Later, by the time at
\n       the first appeal dated 20.01.2009 of the appellant was received, a
\n       decision had been taken by the Commission to share the minutes
\n       of the DPC under RTI Act. Therefore, the appellant was provided
\n       the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
       In light of the above. I don’t see any violation committed by the
\n      CPIO, UPSC in this case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Shri Daryani has then moved his second appeal before us where his prayer
\nis for compensation for the loss and detriment suffered as below:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “I     Rs. One lakh for putting a senior citizen in un-necessary
\n             hassle.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      II     Rs. 25,000 for administrative expenses.\n      III    Any action deemed fit by this Appellate Office.\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
      Appellant has gone on to the argument that because of failure to obtain the
\ninformation in time, he lost the case before the Central Administrative Tribunal
\n(CAT) and his career stood ruined.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The appeal was heard on 24-9-2010. The following are present.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Appellant
\n      Shri A. T. Daryani
\n      Respondent
\n      Shri S. C. Srivastav<\/p>\n
      CPIO Shri S.C. Srivastav, Under Secretary UPSC submitted that although a
\nresponse had been given to appellant Shri Daryani as early as 1.11.2006, which
\nwas within the time mandated by section 7 (1), he has appealed only on 22.1.2009.<\/p>\n
Since the policy of UPSC had undergone a change in the meantime a sympathetic
\nview was taken on this appeal, otherwise time barred, and information provided on
\npayment of the requisite fee. CPIO admitted that the documents provided were not
\ncertified to be true copies but these were readily accepted when they were
\npersonally handed over to appellant Shri Daryani.\n<\/p>\n
      Appellant Shri Daryani on the other hand submitted that the failure to
\nprovide documents otherwise accessible to him under the Act had led him to loss
\nof promotion in 1997 which had a cascading affect so that he loss three
\npromotions and his juniors superseded him; his appeal was rejected by CAT for
\nhis failure to produce the requisite documents. In response to a question as to
\nwhy he had not moved an appeal immediately on refusal Shri Daryani submitted
\nthat he had been in communication with UPSC but had been extended shabby<\/p>\n
                                        3<\/span>
\n treatment. Although he himself was a government servant he was made to run
\nfrom pillar to post in the UPSC like a peon. It is only when he became frustrated
\nwith this treatment then he moved his appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                                DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
       Secretary, UPSC will please take note of the complaint of Shri Daryani of
\nthe mistreatment of an RTI applicant in the premises of UPSC and so restructure
\nthe system as to make it RTI friendly.       On the other hand even if we accept the
\nargument of Shri Daryani, there is a time limit mandated by the law, which we
\nrequire to be observed, and there was nothing to prevent appellant from moving his
\nappeal even while pursuing the matter at the level of CPIO where as per his own
\nadmission he was being treated shabbily.\n<\/p>\n
       Nevertheless, on the question of failure of CPIO to provide him the
\ninformation sought at the initial stage we must observe that the initial policy of
\nthat public authority was for refusing the DPC. Our ruling in light of the RTI Act
\nhas led to a change in the policy of UPSC. The CPIO cannot be held liable for
\npenalty simply because he has complied with UPSC policy, although that policy
\nwas misplaced. He has in fact responded to the RTI application of Shri Daryani
\nwell within the time mandated by subsection (1) of section 7. There is, therefore,
\nno liability for penalty.\n<\/p>\n
       On the other hand while we have noted that the information sought by
\nappellant Shri Daryani has now been provided in response to his appeal, the
\ndemand of CPIO for payment of Rs. 24\/-, which has in fact been paid is in violation
\nof section 7 (6).      The DOPT is by no means an authority under the law to
\ndetermine the application of exemption under section 8 (1). If the UPSC had a
\ngrievance regarding a decision of this Commission the recourse would have been
\nto obtain a stay in Writ before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
\nThis was not done and, therefore, UPSC has forfeited the right to charge fees with
\nregard to this application.   The initial fee charged for the application that was
\nresponded to will remain. However the fee of Rs. 24\/- being the cost of information<\/p>\n
                                         4<\/span>
\n provided will now, therefore, be refunded to appellant Shri Daryani within 10
\nworking days of the receipt of this decision notice under intimation to Shri Pankaj
\nK. P. Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar, Central Information Commission.\n<\/p>\n
       The remaining question is only of whether compensation has become due.
\nThe loss or detriment suffered according to appellant Shri Daryani stems from his
\nbeing passed over in promotion from 1997. However, his application is dated
\n27.10.2006, and it is hence not possible to co-relate the two events. It could,
\nhowever be argued that had the information sought been provided in the first
\ninstance appellant Shri Daryani could have contested the matter more effectively.
\nHowever, this is a question that must remain hypothetical and we must come to the
\nconclusion then there can be no realistic assessment of the loss or detriment
\nsuffered. Moreover, the failure of appellant to move an appeal for nearly two years
\non refusal of his initial request, and the ready condoning of the delay, hardly bears
\nout his claim of loss or detriment suffered. But because the UPSC has undoubtedly
\nerred in refusing information initially on grounds patently invalid, this Commission
\ndirects that a token compensation of Rs. 5000\/- be provided to appellant Shri
\nDaryani for the detriment suffered in the form of psychological stress arising from
\nthe failure of UPSC to provide the information to Shri Daryani required for his
\ncareer development, in the first instance. This compensation will be paid to Shri
\nDaryani within 10 working days of receipt of this decision notice under intimation to
\nShri Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar, Central Information Commission. The
\nappeal is thus allowed in part. There will be no other cost<\/p>\n
       Reserved in the hearing with regard to issue of compensation.             The
\ncomplete decision is announced in open chamber on this twenty-seventh day of
\nSeptember 2010. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n27-9-2010<\/p>\n
                                         5<\/span>
\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
\n27-9-2010<\/p>\n
                                     6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr. A T Daryani vs Union Public Service Commission on 27 September, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000704 dated 15-7-2009 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant: Shri A. T. Daryani Respondent: Supreme Court of India (SCI) Appeal heard 24. 9. 2010 Decision announced 27.9.2010 FACTS By an application […]<\/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-143939","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. A T Daryani vs Union Public Service Commission on 27 September, 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-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. A T Daryani vs Union Public Service Commission on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-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=\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-18T19:32:24+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=\"9 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-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. A T Daryani vs Union Public Service Commission on 27 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-18T19:32:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1736,\"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-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr. A T Daryani vs Union Public Service Commission on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-18T19:32:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. A T Daryani vs Union Public Service Commission on 27 September, 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. A T Daryani vs Union Public Service Commission on 27 September, 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-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. A T Daryani vs Union Public Service Commission on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-18T19:32:24+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. A T Daryani vs Union Public Service Commission on 27 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-18T19:32:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010"},"wordCount":1736,"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-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010","name":"Mr. A T Daryani vs Union Public Service Commission on 27 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-18T19:32:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-t-daryani-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-27-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. A T Daryani vs Union Public Service Commission on 27 September, 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\/143939","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=143939"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143939\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}