{"id":260690,"date":"2010-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-18T13:37:31","modified_gmt":"2017-06-18T08:07:31","slug":"mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr. M S Ramesh vs Union Public Service Commission on 16 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr. M S Ramesh vs Union Public Service Commission on 16 September, 2010<\/div>\n
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n               Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000599 dated 28-5-2009\n                 Right to Information Act<\/a> 2005 - Section 19\n\nAppellant:           Shri M.S. Ramesh,\nRespondent:          Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)\n                 Heard and Decision announced: 16.9.2010\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
      By an application of 28-2-09 received by the CPIO, UPSC on 3-3-09
\nShri M.S. Ramesh of Lawspet, Puducherry sought the following information:\n<\/p>\n
      “Photo-copies of UPSC’s SLP & Review petition and information
\n      related to it. Details enclosed in a separate sheet of paper.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Period for which information asked for : 1989-2008″<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In the ‘separate sheet of paper’ with the details of this request he also
\nsought photocopies of an SLP and Review Petition pending before the
\nSupreme Court of India together with the following questions:\n<\/p>\n
          1.   How many times did Dr. R. Srinivasan apply for the post?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          2.   How many times was he called for the interview?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          3.   How many times did he attend the interview?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          4.   Did he ever get selected?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Upon this Shri Ramesh received the following response from CPIO
\nShri Ashok Mehta, DS, UPSC:\n<\/p>\n
      “The information sought by you under item Nos. 1 & 2 cannot be
\n      shared under Section 8(1)(j)<\/a> of the RTI Act, 2005 wherein it is
\n      inter-alia provided that there shall be no obligation to give any
\n      Citizen, information which relates to personal information the
\n      disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or
\n      interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the
\n      privacy of the individual unless the Central Information Officer or
\n      the State Information Officer or the Appellate Authority as the
\n      case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies
\n      the disclosure of such information.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Shri M.S. Ramesh has then moved an appeal dated 3-4-09 before Shri
\nNuruddin Ansari, JS (R.II) UPSC with the following prayer:\n<\/p>\n
      “The information sought under RTI does not relate to personal
\n      information — its disclosure has much relationship to public
\n      interest. Hence, it may be provided to me without further delay.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                       1<\/span><\/p>\n
            In detailing the facts leading up to the appeal Shri M.S. Ramesh has
\nexplained as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “His1 retrospective regularization, in violation of all recruitment
\n           rules and norms, has jeopardized the services and seniority of
\n           the direct recruits like me (both outsiders and insiders) from the
\n           UPSC. Even the services of the ad hoc lectures who got
\n           subsequently selected by the UPSC after years together have
\n           been regularized only with prospective effect. But Dr. R.
\n           Srinivasan is said to have been rejected by the UPSC more than
\n           once.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Upon this, Appellate Authority Shri Nuruddin Ansari, JS (R.II)
\ndismissed the appeal as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “The information has been rightly denied by the CPIO and
\n           disclosure of information and supply of documents asked for by
\n           the appellant is not in public interest and has no relation to any
\n           public interest or activity”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Appellant has then moved his second appeal before us with the
\nfollowing prayer:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “The information sought under RTI does not relate to
\n           personal information – its disclosure has much relationship
\n           to public interest. Hence, it may be provided to me without
\n           further delay.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The appeal was heard on 16-9-2010. The following are present.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Appellant: (at NIC Studio, Puducherry)
\n           Shri M.S. Ramesh
\n           Respondents (in CIC Chambers)
\n           Shri Kamal Bhagat, JS (R.II)
\n           Shri P.P. Haldar, DS (R-V)<\/p>\n
           Shri P.P. Haldar, DS (R-V) submitted that documents relating to the
\nSLP are the property of the Supreme Court and not his to give. On the
\nspecific question with regard to Dr. Srinivasan raised by the appellant in his
\noriginal application Shri P.P. Haldar submitted that this information is
\nscattered and will, if compiled, divert the resources of the UPSC thus
\nqualifying for exemption u\/s 7 (9).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Appellant Shri Ramesh submitted that regularisation of posts have
\ntaken place as per court orders but there was a suspicion that underhand<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\n    The reference is to Dr. R. Srinivasan<\/p>\n
                                            2<\/span>
\n means have been used for this purpose, therefore, the requirement of the
\ninformation sought.\n<\/p>\n
                              DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
       On the question of providing copies of SLPs etc. this Commission has
\nheld in several cases that once a case has been filed in a court, all documents
\ncontained in that case file become the property of the court, even if the
\nphysical possession of the same were to remain with the respondent. In the
\npresent case it would appear that the SLP, copies of which have been sought
\nby Shri M.S. Ramesh, does not include the appellant as party.           Although,
\ndocuments of the nature sought are indeed accessible under the RTI Act<\/a>
\nexcept those qualifying for exemption u\/s 8 (1) the procedure to be followed
\nfor accessing this information must as per Section 28<\/a> of the RTI Act, i.e.
\nfollowing the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court of India. In this case
\nit will be Order XII of the Supreme Court of India Rules 1966, which deals with
\ninformation on the judicial side. Appellant Shri M.S. Ramesh is, therefore,
\nadvised to make application accordingly. This issue is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
       On the question relating to Dr. R. Srinivasan the contention of CPIO
\nthat the information sought cannot be provided being exempted from
\ndisclosure u\/s 8 (1) (j) because it has no relationship to any public activity or
\ninterest is flawed, since any UPSC examination is, within itself, a public
\nactivity. However, there is nevertheless a possibility that it will amount to
\ninvasion of privacy, which is a subjective evaluation, subject to the perception
\nof third party, in this case Dr. R. Srinivasan. In this matter we refer to the
\ndecision of the Delhi High Court in which Hon’ble Murlidhar J has in a recent
\njudgment in Civil Misc. Petition No 5286\/2009 & WP (C ) No. 8407\/2009;
\nUnion of India vs. Central Information Commission & Anr<\/a>.                 held as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
       18. In order to appreciate their respective contentions, it is first
\n       necessary to refer to Section 11(1)<\/a> of the RTI Act which reads
\n       as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “11. Third party information – (1) Where a Central
\n              Public Information Officer or the State Public Information<\/p>\n
                                        3<\/span>
\n        Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any
\n       information or record, or part thereof on a request made
\n       under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied
\n       by a third party and has been treated as confidential by
\n       that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or
\n       State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
\n       shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give
\n       a written notice to such third party of the request and of
\n       the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or
\n       State Public Information Officer, as the case may be
\n       intends to disclose the information or record, or part
\n       thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in
\n       writing or orally, regarding whether the information should
\n       be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall
\n       be kept it view while taking a decision about disclosure of
\n       information:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial
\n       secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the
\n       public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any
\n       possible harm or injury to the interests of such third
\n       party.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                               (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
19. According to Mr. Bhushan, the ‘third party information’ is that
\ninformation which is in fact provided by the third party and
\nfurther should be asked by the said third party to be kept
\nconfidential. It is only when both these conditions are fulfilled
\nthat Section 11(1)<\/a> of the RTI Act is attracted. In other words,
\nalthough Section 11(1)<\/a> of the RTI act indicates that where the
\ninformation sought “relates to or has been supplied by a third
\nparty” the word ‘or’ should be read as ‘and’ for only then the
\nprovision would be workable. It was submitted that unless the
\nabove interpretation is placed on Section 11(1)<\/a>, it will not be
\npossible for a person to access information relating to
\nappointments to the various posts in the Government of India.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
20. On the other had, it was submitted by Mr. Dubey that there
\nwas no scope to substitute the word ‘or’ with the word ‘and’ and
\nthat since the statute was unambiguous it had to be read as
\nsuch. He submitted that information pertaining to ACRs,
\nvigilance reports etc., of an individual officer and their collation
\neven in the form of a chart would be information personal to
\nsuch officers and has to be viewed as ‘third party information’. It
\nis submitted that in such event the mandatory procedure
\noutlined under Section 11(1)<\/a> of the RTI Act has to be followed.\n<\/p>\n
21. This Court has considered the above submissions. It
\nrequires to be noticed that under the RTI Act<\/a> information that is
\ntotally exempt from disclosure has been listed out in Section 8<\/a>.
\nThe concept of privacy is incorporated in Section 8(1)(j)<\/a> of the
\nRTI Act. This provision would be a defense available to a person
\nabout whom information is being sough. Such defence could be<\/p>\n
                                 4<\/span>
\n           taken by a third party in a proceeding under Section 11(1)<\/a> when
\n          upon being issued notice such third party might want to resist
\n          disclosure on the grounds of privacy. This is a valuable right of a
\n          third party that encapsulates the principle of natural justice
\n          inasmuch as the statute mandates that there cannot be a
\n          disclosure of information pertaining to or which ‘relates to’ such
\n          third party without affording such third party an opportunity of
\n          being heard on whether such disclosure should be ordered. This
\n          is a procedural safeguard that has been inserted in the RTI Act<\/a>
\n          to balance the rights of privacy and the public interest involved
\n          in disclosure of such information. Whether on should trump the
\n          other is ultimately for the information officer to decide in the
\n          facts of a given case.\n<\/p>\n
          In an emphatic conclusion learned Shri Muralidhar J has then stated
\ndefinitively as follows:\n<\/p>\n
          25. The logic of the Section 11(1)<\/a> RTI Act is plain. Once the
\n          information seeker is provided information relating to a third
\n          party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information
\n          seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole
\n          world. There may be an officer who may not want the whole
\n          world to know why he or she was overlooked for promotion. The
\n          defence of privacy in such a case cannot be lightly brushed
\n          aside saying that since the officer is a public servant he or
\n          she cannot possibly fight shy of such disclosure2. There
\n          may be yet another situation where the officer may have no
\n          qualms about such disclosure. And there may be a third
\n          category where the credentials of the officer appointed may be
\n          thought of as being in public interest to be disclosed. The
\n          importance of the post held may also be a factor that might
\n          weigh with the information officer. This exercise of weighing the
\n          competing interests can possibly be undertaken only after
\n          hearing all interested parties. Therefore the procedure under
\n          Section 11(1)<\/a> RTI Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Under the circumstances, whereas the information sought in this matter
\nis not exempt from disclosure in itself, since the question relates to a third
\nparty, a reference to that third party will, therefore, be made by CPIO within
\nfive days of receipt of this Decision Notice, and on receipt of any objection
\nfrom whom, the decision will require to be taken by the CPIO on merits
\nexempting from disclosure only such information as is exempt u\/s 8(1) and
\ntherefore in accordance with the requirements of the RTI Act<\/a>, strictly adhering
\nto the time limit for a response by the third party laid down for the purpose.
\nThe appeal is thus allowed in part. There will be no cost.\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Emphasis added<\/p>\n
                                          5<\/span>
\n        Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
\nto the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n16-9-2010<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n16-9-2010<\/p>\n
                                      6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr. M S Ramesh vs Union Public Service Commission on 16 September, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000599 dated 28-5-2009 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant: Shri M.S. Ramesh, Respondent: Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Heard and Decision announced: 16.9.2010 FACTS By an application of 28-2-09 received by […]<\/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-260690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. M S Ramesh vs Union Public Service Commission on 16 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-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. M S Ramesh vs Union Public Service Commission on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-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=\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-18T08:07:31+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\\\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. M S Ramesh vs Union Public Service Commission on 16 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T08:07:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1964,\"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-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr. M S Ramesh vs Union Public Service Commission on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T08:07:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. M S Ramesh vs Union Public Service Commission on 16 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. M S Ramesh vs Union Public Service Commission on 16 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-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. M S Ramesh vs Union Public Service Commission on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-18T08:07:31+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\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. M S Ramesh vs Union Public Service Commission on 16 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T08:07:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010"},"wordCount":1964,"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-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010","name":"Mr. M S Ramesh vs Union Public Service Commission on 16 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T08:07:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-m-s-ramesh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-16-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. M S Ramesh vs Union Public Service Commission on 16 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\/260690","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=260690"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260690\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}