{"id":62731,"date":"2010-08-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-30T09:31:45","modified_gmt":"2016-06-30T04:01:45","slug":"dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Madhu Nagpal vs Union Public Service Commission on 17 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Dr. Madhu Nagpal vs Union Public Service Commission on 17 August, 2010<\/div>\n
                 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n              Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2010\/000308 dated 7.12.'09\n               Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\nAppellant:          Dr. Madhu Nagpal\nRespondent:         Union Public Services Commission, UPSC\n                                                    Appeal heard on 9.8.'10\n                                              Decision announced 17.8.'10\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
       By an application of 11-12-08 Shri Satya Bhushan Nagpal of Rohini,
\nDelhi applied to the CPIO, UPSC seeking the following information:\n<\/p>\n
       1.    Criterion of selection of candidates for the post of
\n             Principal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (i).    With complete break up of marks for Academic &
\n                     Prof. Qualification, Teaching Experience and
\n                     Interview.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (ii).   As per the above criterion, detail of marks awarded
\n                     to Roll No. 641, Advt. No. 8\/18.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (iii). Cut off marks for the selection of General
\n                     Candidates & marks awarded to selected
\n                     candidates.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (iv). Names of the candidates in the waiting list with the
\n                     details of their marks.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       To this Shri Satya Bhushan Nagpal received a response from CPIO,
\nShri Ashok Mehta, Dy. Secretary, UPSC dated 7-1-09 informing him as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
       Item -I (1 to 4): – Selection of candidates is based on overall
\n       performance of the candidates at the interviews. Break-up of
\n       marks, cut-off marks for selection, marks awarded to
\n       candidates, names of candidates in the waiting list and details of
\n       their marks cannot be shared as these information pertain to
\n       core areas of the Commission and the disclosure of same does
\n       not serve any public interest or activity under Section 8(1)(d) of
\n       the RTI Act, 2005. Further, under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act,
\n       2005 there shall be no obligation to give any citizen the
\n       information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship,
\n       unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public
\n       interest warrants the disclosure of such information.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       This was followed by a series of applications from Dr. Madhu Nagpal
\nwhich all are undated, seeking the following information:\n<\/p>\n
       Request I<\/p>\n
                                       1<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   i)            My Rank with the marks obtained by me
\n                  and the total marks.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  ii)           The marks awarded to me in the interview.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  iii)          Marks awarded to me for Academic\n                  Qualification and teaching Experience.\n\n         Request II\n         1).      Cut off Rank\/Rank of Last Candidate selected both in\n<\/pre>\n
                  General as well as reserved Category selected for Advt.
\n                  8\/18 and 52\/2006<\/p>\n
         Request III.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              i).     Total Number of Posts advertised for both General
\n                      and Reserved category.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              ii).    The number of posts on which the candidates
\n                      have been posted\/filed after the selection.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              iii).   The number of posts (Gen as well as Reserved)
\n                      yet to be filled of that are still vacant and the
\n                      candidates are yet to be posted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Request IV\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  1.        My rank in the Result sheet in the name of Dr.
\n                  Madhu Nagpal Roll No. 2136 with the marks obtained by
\n                  me. Please give my marks for Academic Qualifications,
\n                  Teaching Experience and Interview separately.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         To this, then CPIO Shri Ashok Mehta, DS, UPSC responded
\npainstakingly with a separate response to each application, each dated 23-9-
\n20091:\n<\/p>\n
         I. Selection of candidates is based on overall performance of the
\n         candidates at the interviews. No separate marks for academic
\n         qualifications, teaching experience etc. are assigned to the
\n         candidates. Marks awarded to the candidates cannot be shared
\n         as it pertains to core areas of the functioning of the Commission
\n         and the information is held in fiduciary capacity. Hence the
\n         information cannot be disclosed under the Section 8(1) (e) of the
\n         RTI Act, 2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         II. There is no advertisement issued by the Commission bearing
\n         Advertisement No. 08\/18 for the post of Principal. However, the
\n         Commission had published Advertisement bearing No. 18\/08 on\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         23. 09. 2006 for the above post. The following information is
\n         given pertaining to Advertisement No. 18\/08 and Spl. 52\/2006: –<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Rank(s) assigned to the candidates are based on marks
\n         awarded by the Interview Board. Marks awarded to a candidate
\n1<\/span>
\n These have not been arranged sequentially, and must be read together to answer the questions in
\nappellant’s series of applications<\/p>\n
                                                   2<\/span>
\n cannot be shared as information pertains to core areas of the
\nfunctioning of the Commission and is held in fiduciary capacity.
\nHence the information cannot be disclosed under Section 8(1)\n<\/p>\n
(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.\n<\/p>\n
III. The following information is given pertaining to Advertisement
\nNo. 18\/08: –\n<\/p>\n
Selection of Candidates is based on overall performance of the
\ncandidates at the interviews. No separate marks for academic
\nqualifications, teaching experience etc. are assigned to the
\ncandidates. Marks awarded to the candidates cannot be shared as
\nit pertains to core areas of the functioning of the Commission and
\nthe information is held in fiduciary capacity. Hence the information
\ncannot be disclosed under the Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005.\n<\/p>\n
IV. Item No. 1: Total Number of post advertised for both General
\nand reserved category in each recruitment of above posts are given
\nbelow:-\n<\/p>\n
Advt. No. Spl. 52\/2006
\nTotal numbers of posts are 53 (29 Male & 24 Female). Out of 53
\nposts, 11 posts (04 Male & 07 Female) were reserved for
\nScheduled Castes candidates. 07 posts (05 Male & 02 Female)
\nwere reserved for Scheduled Tribes candidates. 01 post (Female)
\nwas reserved for OBC candidates and remaining 34 posts (20 Male
\n& 14 Female) were unreserved. Out of 53 posts. 02 posts were
\nalso reserved for physically handicapped persons (Male\/Female) of
\nany community.\n<\/p>\n
Advt. No. 18\/08
\nThere is no advertisement issued by the Commission bearing
\nAdvertisement No. 08\/18 for the post of Principal However, the
\nCommission had published Advertisement bearing No. 18\/08 on
\n23.09.2006 for the above post. Hence, the following information is
\ngiven pertaining to Advertisement No. 18\/08:-\n<\/p>\n
Total numbers of posts were 27 (15 Male & 12 Female). Out of 27
\nposts, 03 posts (02 Male & 01 Female) were reserved for
\nScheduled Castes candidates. 02 posts (01 Male & 01 Female)
\nwere reserved for Scheduled Tribes Candidates. 07 posts (04 Male
\n& 03 Female) were reserved for OBC candidates and remaining 15
\nposts (08 Male & 07 Female) were unreserved. Out of 53 posts, 01
\npost are reserved for physically handicapped persons (Male
\n\/Female) of any community. (Reservation for SC\/ST\/OBC is
\nvertical whereas reservation of PH persons is horizontal.\n<\/p>\n
Item No. 2:\n<\/p>\n
The Commission only recommend the candidates to the
\nDepartment concerned. Posting of recommended candidates is the
\nsole responsibility of the Department concerned.
\nItem No. 3:\n<\/p>\n
                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
       Advt. No. Spl 52\/2006
\n      The recommendation of all 51 candidates (2-ST Female posts
\n      became infructuous at interview level) has been sent the concerned
\n      department.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Advt. No. 18\/08
\n      The recommendation of 26 candidates has been sent to the
\n      concerned department and recommendation of one candidate has
\n      been withheld.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Upon this Dr. Madhu Nagpal has made a single appeal before Shri
\nKamal Bhagat, JS (R-II) UPSC pleading that “I hereby submit that the
\ninformation given by the commission does not satisfy me.”            She has then
\nsummarised the information sought as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      i).  My Rank in the Result sheet.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      ii). The marks obtained by me in the interview.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      iii).The cut-off Rank.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      iv). The list of selected candidates with their Ranks (General
\n           as well as Reserved category)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      v). The Number of posts against which the candidates have
\n           not yet joined, the vacant ones, that are yet to be filled, as
\n           informed by the Directorate of Education, NCT of Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      vi). The number of posts on which the selected candidates
\n           have joined as per the department.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Upon this Shri Kamal Bhagat, JS (R-II) vide order dated 18-11-09 has
\nordered as follows:\n<\/p>\n
              4. The CPIO has declined to share the information on point
\n              No. (1) to (3) claiming exemption from disclosure under
\n              Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the ground that it
\n              pertains to core areas of the functioning of the Commission
\n              and the information is held in fiduciary capacity. Though
\n              agreeing with the CPIO that the information sought pertains
\n              to core areas of the Commission, I do not find the reason
\n              conducive that the information is held in fiduciary capacity.
\n              The appellant is informed that the operative life period of the
\n              Reserve Panel is 18 months in normal case and 24 months
\n              in exceptional circumstances from the date of finalization of
\n              Result i.e. Interview Board Report. Since the Reserve
\n              Panels in these two cases have not outlived its validity, the
\n              information on point (1) to (3) cannot be disclosed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              5. The information asked for under point No. (4) in her
\n              instant appeal being a new piece of information cannot be
\n              entertained at appeal stage. With regard to point (5) and (6),
\n              the CPIO has already provided information to the appellant
\n              which is found to be satisfactory.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
        This has brought Dr. Madhu Nagpal before us in second appeal with
\nthe following prayer:\n<\/p>\n
       1).   For items 1,2,3,4 the CPIO claimed exemption and denied
\n             to give me the information under section 8(1)(e) whereas, I
\n             believe in fiduciary capacity, the information must be given
\n             by the holder of the information when there is a choice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The 1ST Appellate Authority claimed exemption without
\n             quoting any section & informed about the operative life
\n             period and validity of the Reserve panel and refused to
\n             disclose the required information.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2)    For items 5 & 6 I believe there is no fiduciary relationship
\n             between the UPSC and the Directorate. Of Education. If
\n             the information was not held with the UPSC, it should have
\n             been transferred to the Department. (Directorate. Of
\n             Education, Government of NCT of Delhi).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Because the UPSC had advertised 58 more posts of Principal in the
\nDelhi Directorate of Education, appellant Dr. Madhu Nagpal applied for out of
\nturn hearing as this would have a bearing on information sought by her, which
\nwas agreed to. The appeal was heard on 9-8-2010. The following are present.\n<\/p>\n
       Appellants
\n       Ms. Madhu Nagpal
\n       Shri S. B. Nagpal
\n       Respondents
\n       Shri Kamal Bhagat, Jt. Registrar (R-II), UPSC
\n       Shri P. P. Halder, DS (R.V)<\/p>\n
       The appeal was examined in light of the abbreviated information
\nsought in appellant Dr. Madhu Nagpal’s first appeal of 29-10-2009.\n<\/p>\n
        Respondent CPIO Shri P.P. Haldar, DS (R-V) UPSC submitted that
\nthere was no cut of rank in the interview.    He also submitted that it is only
\nsuccessful candidates who are ranked and therefore, Dr. Madhu Nagpal
\nwould have received no rank in the result sheet. On the question of marks
\nobtained by her in the interview, however, Shri P.P. Haldar submitted that this
\ninformation is never disclosed except when the vacancies may arise above
\nand beyond the recruitment made when upon a reference made from a
\nparticular department such information is provided. JS, Shri Kamal Bhagat,
\nhowever, submitted that as per the decision of this Commission in Ashok<\/p>\n
                                       5<\/span>
\n Kumar Singh Vs. UPSC in file No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00617-SM the issue had
\nbeen referred to the Chairman, UPSC for consideration whether such
\ninformation should continue to be exempted from disclosure.\n<\/p>\n
       On the question at serial No. 4, as Appellate Authority has held, this
\nbeing a new question, not raised in any of the earlier applications, it would
\nnormally call for a separate and fresh application.       However, CPIO Shri
\nP.P.Haldar agreed that he has no difficulty in providing this information, if
\nasked. Appellant Dr. Madhu Nagpal, on the other hand, submitted a copy of an
\nadvertisement by the Staff Selection Commission in which not only the names
\nand marks of the selected candidates are disclosed but also those in the
\nwaiting list. She, therefore, contested the plea that no marks were give to those
\nwho were not selected, since it was from this reserved list that candidates were
\nrecommended for new vacancies which recommendation would logically follow
\nfrom the position of each of the wait-listed candidates on the merit list. Shri
\nP.P. Haldar also conceded this point but with the qualification that such
\ninformation is in the sealed cover and therefore, unknown to the CPIO,
\ndisclosable only to the Member of the UPSC for recommending names to the
\nrecruiting department.\n<\/p>\n
                              DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
       On question No.3, information on cut off rank information has now
\nbeen provided in the hearing. Since the list of selected candidates with their
\nranks is readily available with the CPIO, even though this request had not
\nfeatured in the original application and, therefore, the order of the Appellate
\nAuthority Shri Kamal Bhagat was correct, to avoid inconvenience, this
\ninformation may now be provided to the appellant Dr. Madhu Nagpal on
\npayment of a fresh application fee within 10 working days of the date of
\nreceipt of such fees.\n<\/p>\n
       On question Nos. 5 and 6 we note that the information had already
\nbeen provided in so far as the UPSC is concerned in CPIO Shri Ashok
\nMehta’s letter of 23-9-09 informing her “The Commission only recommend the
\ncandidates to the Department concerned.            Posting of recommended<\/p>\n
                                       6<\/span>
\n candidates is the sole responsibility of the Department concerned”, together
\nwith the information that,” The recommendation of 26 candidates have been
\nsent to the concerned department and recommendation of one candidate has
\nbeen withheld.”\n<\/p>\n
      These two questions are, therefore, hereby transferred to PIO Shri
\nAnjuman Masood, Asstt. Director, Directorate of Education, Room No. 211-B,
\nOld Secretariat, Delhi-110054 to be answered in accordance with Section 6
\n(1) of the RTI Act. The fee for the same has already been paid in the original
\napplication addressed to UPSC.\n<\/p>\n
      The only issue that, therefore, remains outstanding is whether
\nwithholding the information sought by appellant Dr. Madhu Nagpal in question
\nNos. 1 and 2 of her first appeal is lawful under the RTI Act, 2005. In this
\ncontext we have examined the ruling of this Commission in file No.
\nCIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00617-SM; Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. S.C. Mishra, Col.
\nOffg. Brig. Admn. In this case the decision of this Commission is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      5.     The First Appellate          Authority,   instead of giving
\n             a direct clarification\/ information on the status of his
\n             representation to the President of India and the Defence
\n             Secretary, has quoted the submissions made by the
\n             UPSC in a counter affidavit before the CAT. One would
\n             have expected the First Appellate Authority to be more
\n             forthright and state the position of the Government on his
\n             representation rather then give a circuitous reply like this,
\n             Primarily, the Appellant had wanted to know that if the
\n             order of the CAT, Principle Bench, dated 08.07.2004 had
\n             been implemented he would have been reinstated and
\n             would have been in service when the UPSC invited
\n             applications for regular recruitment. If he had been in
\n             service on that date, he could have got the benefit of
\n             relaxation of age and would not have been rejected due
\n             to overage.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6.     The order of the First Appellate Authority is not clear on
\n             this. The case is, therefore, remanded to the First
\n             Appellate Authority to reconsider the case and to pass a
\n             precise and cogent order stating clearly the decision of
\n             the concerned authorities on the representation of the
\n             Appellant presented to the President of India. The First
\n             Appellate Authority must dispose off this case with a
\n             cogent order within 15 working days of the receipt of this.
\n             The Appellant would have the right to again approach this<\/p>\n
                                       7<\/span>
\n               Commission if he is not satisfied with the revised orders
\n              of the First Appellate Authority.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In this context Brig. A. Banerjee Offg. Appellate Authority in an order of
\n10-11-08 with reference to the UPSC found as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       7.     It is submitted that UPSC had also given reply in their
\n              counter affidavit in response to petition filed by Dr Ashok
\n              Kumar in CAT New Delhi wherein they have stated that
\n              the individual was overage and relaxation of five year was
\n              not admissible to him as he was not a Govt. Servant on
\n              the crucial date i.e. 19.8.2004. UPSC have also
\n              mentioned in the said affidavit that age relaxation is
\n              allowed only as per Recruitment Rules\/ Policy\/
\n              Instructions of DOP&T and good track record\/ experience
\n              are not criteria thereof. They have further stated in the
\n              affidavit that they have to deal with thousands of
\n              candidates in connection with different recruitment cases,
\n              it was clearly mentioned in the advertisements publication
\n              by UPSC that it will not generally correspond with
\n              candidates. The individual was already apprised of the
\n              contents of UPSC under RTI Act vide this Academy letter
\n              No. 095271\/AKS\/Adhoc\/ Est (Civ-5) dated 05 May 2007
\n              in response to his applications addressed to the
\n              President of India and Secretary, Min of Def.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The Central Information Commission has repeatedly held that if the
\nexamination held is a public examination, as it is in this case, information held
\nin regard to that will not find exemption under any of the sub clauses of
\nSection 8 (1) and will thus not be deemed exempt from disclosure. In this
\ncase respondents have argued that since Dr. Madhu Nagpal had not qualified
\nin the interview she has not been ranked.     Even if there is no such rank, as
\nsubmitted by appellant Ms. Nagpal recommendations are made by order of
\nmerit and, therefore, there must be an order of preference for making
\nrecommendation from the wait-list. It is true that Dr. Madhu Nagpal has asked
\nfor her rank in the result sheet, the result sheet need not be read narrowly as
\nthe result sheet only of successful candidates but also the merit list of those
\non the wait list.   This wait list together with the marks obtained by the
\ncandidates in the interview cannot, to our mind, be treated as personal
\ninformation, the disclosure of which would amount to invasion of privacy, nor
\nindeed can it be claimed that such information is not held in relation to any<\/p>\n
                                       8<\/span>
\n public activity since a public examination as held by us above, is a public
\nactivity.\n<\/p>\n
        For the above reasons we do not find the information sought by
\nappellant Dr. Madhu Nagpal under these two questions as information that
\nwould warrant exemption either u\/s 8 (1) or 8 (2), that latter because it has not
\nbeen clarified by respondents how the disclosure of such information would
\nharm to any ‘protected interest’ or indeed what that protected interest might
\nbe. For this reason the appeal is allowed. In this regard information held by
\nUPSC on questions 1 and 2 of the appeal made before Shri Kamal Bhagat,
\nJS (R-II) UPSC by appellant Dr. Madhu Nagpal will now be provided to her
\nwithin 10 working days of the date of receipt of this decision notice.\n<\/p>\n
        Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced in open chamber
\non this seventeenth day of August 2010. Notice of this decision be given free
\nof cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n17-8-2010<\/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
\n17-8-2010<\/p>\n
                                        9<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Dr. Madhu Nagpal vs Union Public Service Commission on 17 August, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2010\/000308 dated 7.12.’09 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant: Dr. Madhu Nagpal Respondent: Union Public Services Commission, UPSC Appeal heard on 9.8.’10 Decision announced 17.8.’10 FACTS By an application of 11-12-08 Shri […]<\/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-62731","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Madhu Nagpal vs Union Public Service Commission on 17 August, 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\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Madhu Nagpal vs Union Public Service Commission on 17 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-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=\"2010-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-30T04:01:45+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Madhu Nagpal vs Union Public Service Commission on 17 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-30T04:01:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2953,\"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\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Dr. Madhu Nagpal vs Union Public Service Commission on 17 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-30T04:01:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Madhu Nagpal vs Union Public Service Commission on 17 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Dr. Madhu Nagpal vs Union Public Service Commission on 17 August, 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\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Madhu Nagpal vs Union Public Service Commission on 17 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-30T04:01:45+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Madhu Nagpal vs Union Public Service Commission on 17 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-30T04:01:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010"},"wordCount":2953,"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\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010","name":"Dr. Madhu Nagpal vs Union Public Service Commission on 17 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-30T04:01:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-madhu-nagpal-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-17-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Madhu Nagpal vs Union Public Service Commission on 17 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/62731","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=62731"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62731\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62731"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62731"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62731"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}