{"id":30163,"date":"2010-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-26T19:42:14","modified_gmt":"2017-10-26T14:12:14","slug":"mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr.S K Rathee vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr.S K Rathee vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n             Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000129 dated 19.2.2009\n               Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\nAppellant:          Shri S. K. Rathee\nRespondent:         Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)\n                  Heard &amp; Decision announced 15.7.'10\n\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n<p>      By an application of 5-9-2008 Shri S.K. Rathee of Bahadurgarh, Haryana<br \/>\napplied to the CPIO, UPSC seeking the following information:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;1.    Copies of show cause notices served by the UPSC to all<br \/>\n             invigilators and supervisors who were on duty on<br \/>\n             14.6.2004 in Room No. 30 at the above examination<br \/>\n             centre No. D-4.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      2.     Copies of replies by the invigilators and the supervisors to<br \/>\n             their said show cause notices to the authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      3.     Copies of proceeding against the persons who were on<br \/>\n             duty in the aforesaid room no. 30.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      To this Shri S.K. Rathee received a response from CPIO, &amp; DS, UPSC<br \/>\nShri Rameshwar Dayal dated 23\/9\/2008 informing him as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;Requested information with respect to paras 1 to 3 of your<br \/>\n      application relates to core area of functioning of the<br \/>\n      Commission, which cannot be shared as disclosure of the same<br \/>\n      would affect the confidentiality, fairness and efficacy of the<br \/>\n      examination system and also no public interest would be served<br \/>\n      thereby. The required information is also exempted from<br \/>\n      disclosure under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      Curiously, the first appeal of Shri S.K. Rathee addressed to Shri K.S.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Bariar, JS (E), UPSC is dated 15-9-08 with receipt stamped by the PMO on 16-<br \/>\n9-08 in which the letter with same number as that of 23-9-08 is cited, even<br \/>\nthough the date there under is 16-9-08. Nevertheless, Shri K.S. Bariar, JS (E)<br \/>\nin his order of 10-11-08 has come to the following decision:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;With regard to appellant&#8217;s requests at Para 2, 3 &amp; 4 of his<br \/>\n      appeal, it is noted that the sought information has been denied<br \/>\n      by the CPIO, UPSC under Section 8 (1) (e). The information<br \/>\n      sought is available under fiduciary relationship of the<br \/>\n      Commission with Supervisor, Invigilators etc and disclosure is<br \/>\n      not considered under public interest. Denial of these information<br \/>\n        by the CPIO, UPSC is thus appropriate and as per provisions of<br \/>\n       the RTI Act, 2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       With regard to other opinions\/ comments made by the appellant<br \/>\n       in his appeal, I note that these are of a nature which do not<br \/>\n       make an appeal.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>       This has brought Shri Rathee to his second appeal before us with the<br \/>\nfollowing prayer:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;1.    Pray for certified photocopy of show cause notices served<br \/>\n              by the UPSC to all invigilators and supervisor who were<br \/>\n              on duty on 14.6.2004 in room no. 30 at the examination<br \/>\n              centre No. D-004 at &#8216;Govt. Boys Sr. Secondary School.<br \/>\n              Andrews Ganj&#8217; New Delhi-49, and now are party to such<br \/>\n              unfair means with Roll No. 3521 who had debarred for a<br \/>\n              period of 10 years by the UPSC.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              The invigilators and the supervisors are now parties to<br \/>\n              the case of unfairness as per the comments of UPSC<br \/>\n              given in its counter affidavit on 29.7.2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       2.     Copies of replies by the invigilators and the supervisor to<br \/>\n              their said show cause to the authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       3.     Copies of proceeding initiated against the invigilator and<br \/>\n              the supervisor who were on duty in the aforesaid room<br \/>\n              no. 30 on 14.6.2004 &amp; made party to the case of unfair<br \/>\n              means with Roll No. 3521 who had debarred for a period<br \/>\n              of 10 year by the UPSC.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>       The appeal was heard through videoconference on 2-6-2010. The<br \/>\nfollowing are present.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Appellant (at NIC Studio, Jhajjar)<br \/>\n       Shri S.K. Rathee<br \/>\n       Respondents<br \/>\n       Shri G. R. Raiger, US, UPSC<br \/>\n       Shri Rameshwar Dayal, DS &amp; CPIO<br \/>\n       Shri Parveen Sharma, SO<br \/>\n       Shri Naresh Kaushik, Advocate<br \/>\n       Ms. Manisha Badoni, Advocate<\/p>\n<p>       Learned counsel for respondent Shri Naresh Kaushik submitted that this<br \/>\nwas the first case of its kind before the UPSC on which they would wish to take<br \/>\na policy decision in a matter of this nature. He, however, clarified that the<br \/>\nstudent was debarred not because he was found during the examination to<br \/>\nhave used unfair means but from the suspicious entries detected at the time of<br \/>\nevaluating the answer sheets.\n<\/p>\n<p>        On this basis appellant Shri S.K. Rathee argued that since the allegation<br \/>\nof unfair means was made only months after the examination, even though the<br \/>\nexamination was conducted under close supervision, he required to know what<br \/>\naction was taken against the officials responsible for scrutinizing the conduct of<br \/>\ncandidates appearing in the examination hall. However, he had no objection to<br \/>\na short adjournment as requested by learned counsel for respondents. For this<br \/>\nreason the request for adjournment was agreed to, and the appeal scheduled to<br \/>\nbe heard on 15th July 2010 at 4.30 p.m. by videoconferencing.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Accordingly the appeal was heard once more with videoconference on<br \/>\n15-7-2010. The following are present:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       Appellant (at NIC Studio, Jhajjar)<br \/>\n       Shri S.K. Rathee<br \/>\n       Respondents at CIC Chamber, New Delhi<br \/>\n       Shri Rameshwar Dayal, DS &amp; CPIO<br \/>\n       Shri G. R. Raiger, US, UPSC<br \/>\n       Shri Naresh Kaushik, Advocate<\/p>\n<p>       Learned Counsel for respondents Shri Naresh Kaushik presented a copy<br \/>\nof the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent presented in the Central<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of Shri Govind<br \/>\nSingh Rathee vs. Union Public Service Commission. In his prayer before us<br \/>\nin second appeal quoted by us above, the invigilators and the supervisors are<br \/>\nclaimed to be &#8220;now parties to the cases of unfairness as per the comments of<br \/>\nUPSC given in its counter affidavit on 29.7.2005&#8221;. Learned Counsel Shri Naresh<br \/>\nKaushik submitted that this contention is based on a misreading of the Counter<br \/>\nAffidavit, which states as follows: &#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>        &#8220;In this connection, it would be worthwhile to mention that report<br \/>\n       of Invigilators\/ Supervisor is not a precondition for establishing<br \/>\n       the charge of copying.          Furthermore, wherein Invigilators<br \/>\n       themselves may become party to such copying, there would be<br \/>\n       no such report.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       He clarified that as he has argued in the last hearing the detection of<br \/>\ncopying did not come during the conduct of the examination but was detected<br \/>\nsubsequently by the examiners in inspecting the answer sheet. For this reason<br \/>\nno case was made out against the invigilators and supervisor and they are not<br \/>\nparties of the case as per the comments of the UPSC in the counter affidavit,<br \/>\n which were simply in reference to a hypothetical question, were they to have<br \/>\nbeen party.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>                              DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n<p>       It would appear that appellant Shri S. K. Rathee has taken this matter to<br \/>\nthe level of CAT and the High Court, which has also inspected the impugned<br \/>\nanswer sheet in the present case.       The only issue in the present case is<br \/>\nregarding action taken against invigilators and supervisors on duty at the time of<br \/>\nthe conduct of the examination, assuming their culpability. It now stands<br \/>\nclarified that no such action has been taken because the invigilators and<br \/>\nsupervisors were not considered party, as wrongly assumed by appellant Shri<br \/>\nRathee. Nevertheless the refusal of this information to Shri S. K. Rathee in the<br \/>\nfirst instance has unnecessarily resulted in this matter being prolonged through<br \/>\nappeal and second appeal, because the refusal in itself would have raised<br \/>\nsuspicion that some action had been taken, which the public authority was loath<br \/>\nto disclose.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Learned Counsel for respondent Shri Naresh Kaushik submitted that<br \/>\nthe UPSC has indeed taken a policy decision on matters of this nature and<br \/>\ndecided that the identity of invigilators and supervisors must be kept<br \/>\nconfidential. In this case, however since there was no involvement of these<br \/>\nparties, and no show cause notices issued of which copies could be provided,<br \/>\nit is not understood why the plea of exemption under section 8 (1)(e) was<br \/>\nrequired to be taken. The order of Joint Secretary (E) Shri K. S. Bariar of<br \/>\n10.11.2008 having been made without application of mind is therefore set<br \/>\naside. Respondents have themselves now disclosed the information sought to<br \/>\nappellant Shri S. K. Rathee in the hearing. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.<br \/>\nThere will be no cost.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to<br \/>\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Wajahat Habibullah)<br \/>\n Chief Information Commissioner<br \/>\n15-7-2010<\/p>\n<p>Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against<br \/>\napplication and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO<br \/>\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)<br \/>\nJoint Registrar<br \/>\n15-7-2010\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr.S K Rathee vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 July, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000129 dated 19.2.2009 Right to Information Act 2005 &#8211; Section 19 Appellant: Shri S. K. Rathee Respondent: Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Heard &amp; Decision announced 15.7.&#8217;10 FACTS By an application of 5-9-2008 Shri S.K. [&hellip;]<\/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-30163","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr.S K Rathee vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.S K Rathee vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-26T14:12:14+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=\"7 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-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.S K Rathee vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-26T14:12:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1342,\"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-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr.S K Rathee vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-26T14:12:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.S K Rathee vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 July, 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.S K Rathee vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.S K Rathee vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-26T14:12:14+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.S K Rathee vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-26T14:12:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010"},"wordCount":1342,"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-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010","name":"Mr.S K Rathee vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-26T14:12:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-k-rathee-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.S K Rathee vs Union Public Service Commission on 15 July, 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\/30163","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=30163"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30163\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30163"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}