{"id":189015,"date":"2011-07-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-04-30T00:48:48","modified_gmt":"2018-04-29T19:18:48","slug":"mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Amarjeet vs Union Public Service Commission on 19 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr. Amarjeet vs Union Public Service Commission on 19 July, 2011<\/div>\n
                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                             Club Building (Near Post Office)\n                           Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067\n                                  Tel: +91-11-26161796\n\n                                                        Decision No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000347\/SG\/13530\n                                                                Appeal No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000347\/SG\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant                                    :      Mr. Amarjeet,\n                                                    S\/o Mr. Mange Ram,\n                                                    Village Gudhana, PO Sherpur Teh. Pataudi,\n                                                    District Gurgaon- 123502\n\nRespondent                                   :      Mr. N. K. Sharma,\n                                                    PIO & Deputy Secretary (R- II),\n                                                    Union Public Service Commission,\n                                                    Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,\n                                                    New Delhi\n\nRTI application                              :      18\/05\/2010\nPIO replied on                               :      17\/06\/2010\nFirst Appeal filed on                        :      09\/07\/2010 (Not enclosed)\nFAA order of                                 :      05\/08\/2010 (Complete order not enclosed)\nSecond Appeal filed on                       :      11\/11\/2010\n\n<\/pre>\n
Information sought regarding recruitment of Meteorologists in the year 2001- 02:\n<\/p>\n
1. Provide list of names and addresses of the candidates who qualified in the written examination for the
\npost of meteorologists in the year 2001- 02;\n<\/p>\n
2. Marks obtained by theses candidates in written exam and interview;\n<\/p>\n
3. List of finally selected candidates.\n<\/p>\n
Reply of Public Information Officer (PIO):\n<\/p>\n
“Item No. 1 & 2: 186 candidates were called for interview for the posts of meteorologists held from 4 th
\nMarch 2002 to 18th March 2002. There is need to get 8 pages got typed for the names of the called
\ncandidates. The marks obtained by these candidates in written exam as well as in the interview cannot be
\nshared as this information falls under core functioning area of the Commission. The addresses of these
\ncandidates cannot be provided as the application dossiers of recommended candidates have been sent to
\nthe requisitioning department and the remaining application dossiers of non- recommended candidates
\nhave been weeded, out as per record retention schedule.\n<\/p>\n
Item No.3: There is need to get 2 pages typed for the list of selected candidates. In total 10 pages are to
\nbe photocopied hence you are required to provide Rs 20\/- (Rupees twenty) at the rate of Re 2\/- per page.”\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Not enclosed.\n<\/p>\n
Order of First Appellate Authority (FAA): (As per the record filed before the Commission)
\n“4. In response to point No.1 and 2, the CPIO had asked the appellant to deposit Rs.20\/- for supplying
\nhim list of names (excluding addresses) of the called candidates and list of selected candidates. The CPIO
\n                                                                                                Page 1 of 5<\/span>
\n had also conveyed to the appellant the valid reasons for not providing addresses of candidates called for
\ninterview. In this regard, the appellant is informed that since he has deposited P.s.20\/-, the lists in
\nquestion are being sent to him shortly. Information on point No.2 above was not provided by the CPIO on
\nthe ground that the information falls under core functioning…”\n<\/p>\n
Vide letter dated 13\/08\/2010, the PIO replied that further to the order of the FAA dated 05\/08\/2010, the
\nrelevant information was as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Point No. 1 & 3: List of names and roll numbers of 186 candidates qualified in the written examination
\nand list of names and roll number of 54 finally selected candidates are enclosed.\n<\/p>\n
Point No. 2: Your request is under consideration in consultation with the competent authority and a reply
\nwill follow.”\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
In reference to the order of the FAA, the Appellant, vide letter dated 13\/09\/2010, requested the
\nRespondent to provide the complete information. However, the PIO, vide letter dated 08\/10\/2010
\ninformed that the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and interview was third
\nparty information of a private nature and constituted personal information. In other words, no information
\nhas been received in relation to point no. 2.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on May 12, 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Amarjeet;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. N. K. Sharma, PIO & Deputy Secretary (R – II).\n<\/p>\n
The Commission noted that the Appellant has not been provided with information on point no. 2. The
\ninformation was denied by the PIO on the basis that it was third party information and exempted under
\nSection 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Respondent relied on the Commission’s decision in Raj Bahadur v.
\nUPSC CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000114 dated 27\/04\/2010, wherein it was observed:\n<\/p>\n
   “The breakup of marks obtained by the candidates in the personality test is third party
\n   information of a private nature and will qualify for exemption from disclosure u\/s 8(1)(j) in
\n   terms of the disclosure of the original charter of marks. The total marks obtained, however,
\n   cannot be so termed.”\n<\/p>\n
The Appellant further stated that the PIO had not claimed any exemption in his reply dated 17\/06\/2010.
\nThe PIO, on the other hand, stated that he had informed the Appellant on 08\/10\/2010 that he was claiming
\nthe exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission observed that if any exemption was to be claimed by the PIO, he should do so within 30
\ndays, failing which information shall be provided to the applicant. The PIO stated that he was required to
\nfirst ascertain whether disclosure of information was as per the policies of UPSC and then furnish the
\nsame. The Commission warned the PIO that his duty was to ensure that information was provided to
\ncitizens as per the provisions of the RTI Act and policies of a public authority cannot be claimed to
\nsupersede the mandate of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
Further, the Appellant brought to the Commission’s notice that Mr. Kamal Bhagat, FAA & Joint Secretary
\n(R – II) did not state that information on point no. 2 was exempted but had ruled- “in view of above the
\nappeal is partly allowed and the case is remanded back to the CPIO to reconsider the request of the
\nAppellant for point no.2 and to send the satisfactory reply to the Appellant within 15 days of passing the
\norder”.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                              Page 2 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
 The Commission reserved the order at the hearing held on 12\/05\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
Decision announced on 19 July 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The Commission noted that no information has been provided to the Appellant in relation to point no. 2 of
\nthe RTI application i.e. marks obtained by candidates in the written examination and interview. Based on
\nthe papers before the Commission and the contentions of the parties, it appears that the said information
\nwas refused as it was third party information and on the basis of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO has argued inter alia that the information sought in point no. 2 could not be provided as it was
\nthird party information. Section 11(1) of the RTI Act provides as follows:\n<\/p>\n
   “11. Third party information.- (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or the State
\n   Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or
\n   part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third
\n   party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information
\n   Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the
\n   receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that
\n   the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
\n   intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make
\n   a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and
\n   such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure
\n   of information:\n<\/p>\n
       Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure
\n   may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or
\n   injury to the interests of such third party.” (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n
As per Section 11 of the RTI Act, where the PIO intends to disclose any information, which relates to or
\nhas been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the PIO shall
\ninvite submissions from the third party whether such information shall be disclosed or not. The information
\nor record sought must be either supplied by the third party or must relate to the third party and in both
\ncases, must be treated as confidential by the third party. Section 11(1) of the RTI Act qualifies the nature of
\nthe information provided by the third party to the PIO; it does not bring within its purview every
\ninformation provided by the third party to the PIO. On receipt of submissions from the third party, Section
\n11(1) of the RTI Act requires that the PIO shall keep the submissions in view while taking a decision
\nwhether the information sought shall be disclosed or not.\n<\/p>\n
Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is triggered once the PIO intends to disclose to the applicant any information\/
\nrecord which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that
\nthird party. Once Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is applicable, the PIO shall follow the procedure of serving
\na notice to the third party for seeking objections whether such information shall be disclosed or not. On
\nreceipt of the submissions of the third party, the PIO shall keep the submissions in view and then decide
\nwhether the information sought shall be disclosed or not. If the PIO does not find any merit in the
\nsubmissions of the third party, he shall disclose the information sought to the applicant. On the other hand,
\nwhere the PIO decides that the information sought shall not be disclosed then the basis for denial of
\ninformation must be in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only. However (except in the case
\nof trade or commercial secrets protected by law) even where the PIO is of the view that there is possible
\nharm or injury to the interests of the third party, but public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance
\nany such harm or injury, he may disclose the information. Thus Section 11 does not give the third party a
\nright of veto in giving information.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                  Page 3 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
 In this regard, it may be worthwhile to note the observations of Muralidhar, J. of the High Court of Delhi in
\nArvind Kejriwal v. CPIO W. P. (C) 6614\/2008 and C. M. Appl. No. 12685\/2008, W. P. (C) 8999\/2008 and
\nC. M. Appl. No. 7517\/2008, W. P. (C) 8407\/2009 and C. M. Appl. 5286\/2009, in Paragraph 21, which are
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
   “…It requires to be noticed that under the RTI Act information that is totally exempt from
\n   disclosure has been listed out in Section 8. The concept of privacy is incorporated in Section
\n   8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This provision would be a defense available to a person about whom
\n   information is being sought. Such defense could be taken by a third party in a proceeding under
\n   Section 11(1) when upon being issued notice such third party might want to resist disclosure on
\n   the grounds of privacy. This is a valuable right of a third party that encapsulates the principle of
\n   natural justice inasmuch as the statute mandates that there cannot be a disclosure of information
\n   pertaining to or which ‘relates’ to such third party without affording such third party an
\n   opportunity of being heard on whether such disclosure should be ordered. This is a procedural
\n   safeguard that has been inserted in the RTI Act to balance the rights of privacy and the public
\n   interest involved in disclosure of such information. Whether one should trump the other is
\n   ultimately for the information officer to decide in the facts of a give case.”\n<\/p>\n
In the present matter, it follows that information sought in point no. 2 cannot be denied by stating merely
\nthat it is third party information. As per Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, as described above, if the PIO
\nintended to disclose the same, he should have followed the procedure mentioned therein. However, it
\nappears that the PIO did not intend to disclose the information sought in point no. 2 and consequently did
\nnot invoke the procedure mentioned in Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. In such circumstance, if information
\nis to be denied, it must be on the basis of Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only. In this regard, the PIO has
\nalso claimed that the information sought in point no. 2 was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
This Commission, in a number of decisions, has held that in order to qualify for the exemption under
\nSection 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the information must satisfy the following criteria:\n<\/p>\n
   1. It must be personal information: Words in a law should normally be given the meaning given in
\n   common language. In common language, we would ascribe the adjective ‘personal’ to an attribute
\n   which applies to an individual and not to an institution or a corporate. Therefore, it flows that
\n   ‘personal’ cannot be related to institutions, organisations or corporates. Hence Section 8(1)(j) of the
\n   RTI Act cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.\n<\/p>\n
   2. The phrase ‘disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest’ means that
\n   the information must have been given in the course of a public activity. Various public authorities in
\n   performing their functions routinely ask for ‘personal’ information from citizens, and this is clearly a
\n   public activity. Public activities would typically include situations wherein a person applies for a job,
\n   or gives information about himself to a public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission,
\n   licence or authorisation, or provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation.\n<\/p>\n
   3. The disclosure of the information would lead to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
\n   individual. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary
\n   situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a citizen. In those circumstances
\n   special provisions of the law apply usually with certain safeguards. Therefore where the State
\n   routinely obtains information from citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and
\n   will not be an intrusion on privacy.\n<\/p>\n
Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal and therefore
\nwould apply uniformly to all human beings worldwide. However, the concept of ‘privacy’ is a cultural
\nnotion, related to social norms, and different societies would look at these differently. Therefore referring
\n                                                                                                 Page 4 of 5<\/span>
\n to the UK Data Protection Act or the laws of other countries to define ‘privacy’ cannot be considered a
\nvalid exercise to constrain the Citizen’s fundamental Right to Information in India. Parliament has not
\ncodified the right to privacy so far, hence in balancing the Right to Information of Citizens and the
\nindividual’s Right to Privacy the Citizen’s Right to Information would be given greater weightage. The
\nSupreme Court of India has ruled that Citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for
\nelections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service. It is
\nobvious then that those who are public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges
\nagainst them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record of misgovernance and rampant corruption
\nwhich colludes to deny Citizens their essential rights and dignity, it is in the fitness of things that the
\nCitizen’s Right to Information is given greater primacy with regard to privacy.\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case, the marks obtained in the written examination and interview is, no doubt, personal
\ninformation of the candidates concerned. This information bears a relationship with a public activity
\ncarried out by the Respondent- public authority. However, the Commission is unable to understand how
\ndisclosure of marks obtained would cause an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the individual.
\nCandidates appearing and qualifying for the post of a public officer\/ government servant are accountable
\nto the citizens and consequently, the basis on which they are appointed to such post must be transparent in
\nnature. Therefore, the PIO’s contention that the information sought in point no. 2 was exempted from
\ndisclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
Further, the Commission has perused the decision in Raj Bahadur v. UPSC CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000114
\ndated 27\/04\/2010. The issues and the information sought therein are different from the facts in the present
\nmatter. Therefore, the decision in the Raj Bahadur Case is not relevant to the instant matter.\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     The PIO is directed to provide the complete information on point no. 2 to the
\nAppellant before 15 August 2011.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                                      Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                                                   19 July 2011
\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(HA)<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                     Page 5 of 5<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr. Amarjeet vs Union Public Service Commission on 19 July, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000347\/SG\/13530 Appeal No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000347\/SG Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Amarjeet, S\/o Mr. Mange Ram, Village Gudhana, PO Sherpur […]<\/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-189015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. Amarjeet vs Union Public Service Commission on 19 July, 2011 - 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-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Amarjeet vs Union Public Service Commission on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-29T19:18:48+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=\"14 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-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Amarjeet vs Union Public Service Commission on 19 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-29T19:18:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2663,\"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-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr. Amarjeet vs Union Public Service Commission on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-29T19:18:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Amarjeet vs Union Public Service Commission on 19 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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. Amarjeet vs Union Public Service Commission on 19 July, 2011 - 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-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Amarjeet vs Union Public Service Commission on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-29T19:18:48+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Amarjeet vs Union Public Service Commission on 19 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-29T19:18:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011"},"wordCount":2663,"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-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011","name":"Mr. Amarjeet vs Union Public Service Commission on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-29T19:18:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-amarjeet-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-19-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Amarjeet vs Union Public Service Commission on 19 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/189015","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=189015"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189015\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}