{"id":218533,"date":"2009-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009"},"modified":"2015-06-16T15:24:54","modified_gmt":"2015-06-16T09:54:54","slug":"shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri R. K. Tyagi vs Dep\u2019T. Of Personnel & Training on 20 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri R. K. Tyagi vs Dep\u2019T. Of Personnel & Training on 20 April, 2009<\/div>\n
                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                           Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/01612 dated 17.12.2007\n                              Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nAppellant        -          Shri R. K. Tyagi\nRespondent           -      Dep't. of Personnel & Training\n\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
     By an application of 16.7.07 Shri Rajesh K. Tyagi, ACE\/Principal Director,
\nDirectorate of Works, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi applied to the CPIO, Under
\nSecretary (ACC), DOPT seeking the following information:\n<\/p>\n
         “(a)   Copies of DPC proceeding and notings of DPC proceedings
\n                from the stage of DPC held on 28th March 2007, approval by
\n                ACC and up to the stage of issue of panel bringing out the
\n                cause of omission of certain names including mine from the
\n                approved panel in respect of promotion of Additional Chief
\n                Engineer to the grade of Chief Engineer in MES of the
\n                Ministry of Defence against the vacancies for the year 2007-
\n                08 for which approved panel for promotion has been issued
\n                by E-in-C’s branch vide letter No. B\/41021\/DPC\/CE\/2007-
\n                08\/E1 (DCP-1) dated 27 Jun 2007.<\/p>\n
         (b)    Why the main panel is only for 07 (Seven) officers where as
\n                the vacancies existed was 10 (Ten) at the time of holding
\n                DPC on 28th March 2007.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Out of the 07 officers included in the main panel, only 03
\n                officers are retiring during the year 2007-08 then why the
\n                extended panel is for 05 officers.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     To this he received a response forthwith on 24.7.07 refusing the information
\nsought u\/s 8 sub sec. (1) (i) from CPIO Shri Ravindra Kumar, Under Secretary.
\nShri Tyagi then moved his first appeal on 1.8.07 before Shri Alok Kumar,
\nDirector, ACC, DOPT, in which he has contested the applicability of sec. 8(1)(i)
\nin his case, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “a)    This section is applicable in cases involving deliberations by
\n                Council of Ministers. Here ACC does not constitute council
\n                of ministers. It is only a committee involving 2 to 3 ministers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         b)     In this case though approved panel for promotion of
\n                Additional Chief Engineers to Chief Engineers has already
\n                been published by E-in-C’s Branch\/ MES letter No.<\/p>\n
                                                1<\/span>
\n               B\/41021\/DPC\/CE\/2007-08 E1 (DPC-1) dated 27th Jun 07
\n              and DPC is complete and over. But reason thereof and the
\n              material on the basis of which my name has not been
\n              included in approved panel of promotion has not been made
\n              public. This specifically is the information which has been
\n              sought under RTI Act and no restriction exists against
\n              revealing notings giving reason for exclusion of my name
\n              from the approved panel of promotion in contravention of
\n              existing DOPT guidelines and Govt rules on the subject as
\n              on the date of DPC.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In a closely argued order of 24.9.07 Shri Alok Kumar has sought to
\ndistinguish between Cabinet Papers and decisions of Council of Ministers, as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
       “It is observed that Section 8 (1) (i) of the RTI Act clearly lays down
\n       that “Cabinet papers” including “records of deliberations of the
\n       Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers” are exempted
\n       from disclosure. There is no obligation on the part of the CPIO to
\n       give above mentioned information.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       There is, however, a provision, under the section 8 (1) (i) which lays
\n       down that the ‘decision of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof,
\n       and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken
\n       ‘shall be made public’ after ‘the decision has been taken, and the
\n       matter is complete, or over’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Obviously, ‘Cabinet Papers’ have a wider meaning in the Act. It
\n       includes all the papers pertaining to deliberations of the various
\n       Committees of the Cabinet, apart from including the papers
\n       pertaining to ‘Records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers’,
\n       ‘Records of deliberations of the Secretaries’ and ‘Records of
\n       deliberations of other officers’. ‘Decisions of the Council of
\n       Ministers’ and ‘material on the basis of which the decisions were
\n       taken’ are a just a sub-set of the larger set of documents
\n       encompassed under the larger term ‘Cabinet Papers’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Out of these types of documents only one set of documents is
\n       mandated to be made public after ‘the decision has been taken,
\n       and the matter is complete, or over.’ The use of the term ‘Shall be
\n       made public’, in the Act, obviously makes it a duty for the Public
\n       Authorities to make public the ‘decisions of the Council of Ministers’
\n       and ‘material on the basis of which the decisions were taken’.
\n       Naturally, there should be no occasion or need for any info-seeker
\n       to ask for this class of information, as these are mandated, in any
\n       case, to be made public. But this stipulation (making them
\n       mandatorily public) is attracted, specifically, only in cases of<\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span>
\n       ‘Decisions of Council of Ministers’ and, definitely, not in respect of
\n      any other class of ‘Cabinet Papers.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Arguing that the proviso to sec. 8(1) (i) cannot be road to enable disclosure
\nof all classes of Cabinet Papers, he has come to the following conclusion:\n<\/p>\n
      “therefore, in view of afore quoted unambiguous provisions, the
\n      ‘Cabinet Papers’ are outside the purview of the RTI Act.’<\/p>\n
He has also placed reliance on an additional exemption u\/s 8(1) (j) as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “Section 8 (1) (j) clearly provides as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “information which relates to personal information the disclosure of
\n      which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which
\n      would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual
\n      unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
\n      Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be,
\n      is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of
\n      such information”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      From reading of this Section, it is apparent that the personal
\n      information, disclosure of which has no relationship with public
\n      activity need not be parted with, unless larger public interest is
\n      justified, in disclosure. I find that disclosing of the information
\n      sought for (even if accepted, for argument’s sake, as capable of
\n      being disclosed) would not serve any larger public interest.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On this basis, he has concluded as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “In view of the aforementioned observations, I, therefore, hereby
\n      reject the appeal of Shri Rakesh K. Tyagi.”\n<\/p>\n
The appeal was heard on 20.4.2009. The following are present:\n<\/p>\n
      Respondents
\n           Shri Prabhat, Director
\n           Shri Kabindra Joshi, Under Secretary<\/p>\n
     Appellant Sh. R. K. Tyagi had been informed by Notice dated 21.3.2009
\nregarding the hearing but he has opted not to be present.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Shri Prabhat, Director, DOPT submitted that earlier decision by this
\nCommission on the same subject has been challenged by the Department,
\nbefore the High Court of Delhi. The Writ had, however, no so far been admitted.\n<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
         In our decision dated 23.10.08 CIC\/WB\/A\/2008\/00081, Khandelwal vs.
\nDoPT we have examined an identical argument of the same Appellate Authority
\nand concluded as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “The Constitution of India, per se, did not include the term
\n           “Cabinet”, when it was drafted and later on adopted and enacted by
\n           the Constituent Assembly. The term “Cabinet” was, however, not
\n           unknown at the time when the Constitution was drafted. Lot of
\n           literature was available during that period about “Cabinet”, “Cabinet
\n           System” and “Cabinet Government”. Sir Ivor Jennings, in his
\n           “Cabinet Government”, stated that the Cabinet is the supreme
\n           directing authority. It has to decide policy matters. It is a policy
\n           formulating body. When the Cabinet has determined on policy, the
\n           appropriate Department executes it either by administrative action
\n           within the law, or by drafting a Bill to be submitted to Parliament so
\n           as to change the law. The Cabinet is a general controlling body. It
\n           neither desires, nor is able to deal with all the numerous details of
\n           the Government. It expects a Minister to take all decisions which
\n           are of political importance. Every Minister must, therefore, exercise
\n           his own discretion as to what matters arising in his department
\n           ought to receive Cabinet sanction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           3.      In the Indian context, the Cabinet is an inner body within the
\n           Council of Ministers which is responsible for formulating the policy
\n           of the Government. It is the Council of Ministers which is
\n           collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. The Council of Ministers
\n           is headed by the Prime Minister and it is he, primus inter pares 1
\n           who determines which of the Ministers should be Members of the
\n           Cabinet. [Page 651 Advanced Law Lexicon ]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           4.     It is a matter of common knowledge that the Council of
\n           Ministers consist of the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Ministers
\n           of State and the Civil Services. The 44th Amendment to the
\n           Constitution of India for the first time not only used the term
\n           “Cabinet”, but also literally defined it. Clause 3 of Article 352, which
\n           was inserted by 44th Amendment, reads as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  “The President shall not issue a Proclamation under clause
\n                  (1) or a Proclamation varying such Proclamation unless the
\n                  decision of the Union Cabinet (that is to say, the Council
\n                  consisting of the Prime Minister and other Ministers of
\n                  Cabinet rank appointed under article 75) that such a<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\n    First among equals.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
                    Proclamation may be issued has been communicated to him
\n                   in writing.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           5.     As per Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a
\n           “Public Authority” is not obliged to disclose Cabinet papers
\n           including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers,
\n           Secretaries and other Officers. Section 8(1) sub-section (i) subjects
\n           this general exemption in regard to Cabinet papers to two proviso
\n           which are as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the
\n                  reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the
\n                  decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision
\n                  has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over 2 :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   Provided further that those matters which come under the
\n                   exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           6.   From a plain reading of the above provisos, the following
\n           may be inferred:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                i)      “Cabinet papers, which include the records of
\n                        deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries
\n                        and other officers shall be disclosed after the decision
\n                        has been taken and the matter is complete or over.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                ii)     The matters which are otherwise exempted under
\n                        Section 8 shall not be disclosed even after the
\n                        decision has been taken and the matter is complete
\n                        or over.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                iii)    Every decision of the Council of Ministers is a
\n                        decision of the Cabinet as all Cabinet Ministers are
\n                        also a part of the Council of Ministers. The Ministers
\n                        of State are also a part of the Council of Ministers, but
\n                        they are not Cabinet Ministers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           As we have observed above, the plea taken by the First
\n           Appellate Authority the decision of the Council of Ministers are
\n           disclosable but Cabinet papers are not, is totally untenable.
\n           Every decision of the Council of Ministers is a decision of the
\n           Cabinet and, as such, all records concerning such decision or
\n           related thereto shall fall within the category of “Cabinet papers”
\n           and, as such, disclosable under Section 8(1) sub-section (i) after
\n           the decision is taken and the matter is complete, and over.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Similarly in our Decision of16.3.2009 in appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/01359
\nPK Jain vs. DoPT we saw no reason to differ with above decision and also dealt
\n2<\/span>
\n    Underlined by us for emphasis<\/p>\n
                                             5<\/span>
\n with Appellate authority Shri Alok Ranjan’s application of exemption u\/s 8 (1) (j)
\nas he has done in this case.\n<\/p>\n
       “Besides, however, while Shri Alok Kumar had been at pains to
\n       discuss how decisions of the Council of Minister alone are
\n       disclosable. he has gone on to argue that disclosure would not
\n       serve any larger public interest. Shri Alok Kumar has completely
\n       misunderstood the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j). Public interest in
\n       this case cannot be used to deny information. It is, instead, an
\n       enabling provision warranting the disclosure of information even
\n       where it would otherwise fall in the category of exempted
\n       information. Moreover, in this case the applicability of Section 8 (1)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (j) to an application seeking information on himself by any citizen of
\n       India can hardly be construed as “invasion” of privacy. The effort to
\n       invoke this exemption clause, therefore, is nothing less than
\n       facetious.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       For the above reasons the Commission accordingly directs that the
\n       requested information be made available to the appellant Shri Jain
\n       within a period of ten working says from the date of issue of this
\n       order. This appeal is then allowed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      This decision will apply mutatis mutandis in the present case. The appeal
\nis, therefore, allowed. Information sought will now be supplied to Shri Tyagi
\nwithin ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. There will
\nbe no costs.\n<\/p>\n
      Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n20.4.2009<\/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 Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n20.4.2009<\/p>\n
                                         6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri R. K. Tyagi vs Dep\u2019T. Of Personnel & Training on 20 April, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/01612 dated 17.12.2007 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant – Shri R. K. Tyagi Respondent – Dep’t. of Personnel & Training Facts : By an application of 16.7.07 Shri Rajesh K. […]<\/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-218533","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri R. K. Tyagi vs Dep\u2019T. Of Personnel & Training on 20 April, 2009 - 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\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri R. K. Tyagi vs Dep\u2019T. Of Personnel & Training on 20 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-16T09:54:54+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri R. K. Tyagi vs Dep\u2019T. Of Personnel & Training on 20 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-16T09:54:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2067,\"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\\\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri R. K. Tyagi vs Dep\u2019T. Of Personnel & Training on 20 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-16T09:54:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri R. K. Tyagi vs Dep\u2019T. Of Personnel & Training on 20 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri R. K. Tyagi vs Dep\u2019T. Of Personnel & Training on 20 April, 2009 - 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\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri R. K. Tyagi vs Dep\u2019T. Of Personnel & Training on 20 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-16T09:54:54+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri R. K. Tyagi vs Dep\u2019T. Of Personnel & Training on 20 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-16T09:54:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009"},"wordCount":2067,"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\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009","name":"Shri R. K. Tyagi vs Dep\u2019T. Of Personnel & Training on 20 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-16T09:54:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-r-k-tyagi-vs-dept-of-personnel-training-on-20-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri R. K. Tyagi vs Dep\u2019T. Of Personnel & Training on 20 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/218533","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=218533"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218533\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218533"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}