{"id":75032,"date":"2010-06-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-16T07:23:44","modified_gmt":"2018-07-16T01:53:44","slug":"mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Major Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Major Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 June, 2010<\/div>\n
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n               Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000403 dated 27.3.2009\n                 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\nAppellant:           Shri Major Singh\nRespondent:          Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)\n                        Decision announced 11.6.'10\n\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
      By an application of 27-8-2008 Shri Major Singh of Vijaynagar, Indore
\napplied to CPIO Shri Ashok Mehta, Dy. Secretary, UPSC seeking the following
\ninformation:\n<\/p>\n
       “(a)    Particulars (name, qualifications & experience) of
\n               (eligible) applicants for appointment to 7 posts of
\n               Principal (Female) reserved for SC in response to UPSC
\n               special advertisement No. 52\/2006.<\/p>\n
      (b)      Criteria adopted for short-listing the candidates
\n               summoned for interview by UPSC to the 7 posts at (a)
\n               above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (c)      List of candidates summoned for interview by UPSC for\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (a) above.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (d)      Criteria adopted by UPSC for short listing the SC
\n               candidates summoned for interview for 1 post of Principal
\n               (directorate of Education), Delhi reserved for SC (female)
\n               candidate in August, 2006.’<\/p>\n
      To this, Shri Major Singh received a response on 24-9-2008 answering
\nquestion nos. 2 and 4 in some detail, but replying of 1 and 3 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Item No. 1: The particulars of eligible applicants cannot be
\n            disclosed as the disclosure do not serve any public
\n            interest and is exempted under section 8 (1) (e) of RTI
\n            Act, 2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Item No. 3: Thirty-Five candidates were summoned for interview
\n            against 7 posts reserved for SC (female) candidates. We
\n            cannot provide the list of candidates as it does not serve
\n            any public interest, hence exempted under section 8 (1)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (e) of RTI Act, 2005.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Aggrieved with this response Shri Major Singh moved an appeal before
\nShri Nuruddin Ansari, Jt. Secretary, (R-II) on 21.10.2008 pleading as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “It may be seen that the information at (a) & (c) above pertains
\n      exclusively for S. C. Candidates. The screening of the eligible
\n      S. C. Candidates and ensuring the criteria applied for short-
\n      listing the candidates selected for interview by UPSC is in public<\/p>\n
                                        1<\/span>
\n        interest. There is no reason to deny access to this information
\n       by quoting section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Upon this, Shri Nuruddin Ansari, Jt. Secretary (R-II) allowed the appeal in
\npart by his order of 11.11.2008 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
         “The personal details of the candidates are held by the
\n       Commission in a fiduciary capacity and constitute third party
\n       information and disclosure of the same is exempted under
\n       section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The CPIO has rightly
\n       declined to share the personal details of eligible candidates’. As
\n       regards item (C), in my opinion, the list of names of candidates’
\n       summoned for interview could have been provided to the
\n       appellant, which may be provided.’<\/p>\n
       In compliance with this order CPIO Shri Ashok Mehta, Dy. Secretary,
\nUPSC provided the following information on 17.11.2008 to Shri Major Singh as
\nfollows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        “A list of 35 candidates who were called for interview for 7 posts
\n       of Principal reserved for SC (female) candidates in the matter of
\n       recruitment to 53 posts of Principal in Govt. Senior Secondary
\n       School under Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi, is sent
\n       herewith.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Attached with this letter was an annexure listing 35 names with Roll
\nNumber. This has brought Shri Major Singh before us in second appeal on the
\nsingle question remaining from his initial application, thus pleading as follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         “Pray to quash order No. F7\/39\/2008-R.III dated 11th
\n       November, 2008 of Shri Nuruddin Ansari, Joint Secretary,
\n       Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House,
\n       Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110 069 and direct to provide
\n       the information for Sl. No. (a) of the petition (reproduced
\n       below) dated 2s1t October, 2008:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       ‘(a)  Particulars (name, qualifications & experience) of
\n             (eligible) applicants for appointment to 7 posts of
\n             Principal (Female) reserved for SC in response to
\n             UPSC special advertisement No. 52\/2006.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The appeal was heard on 11-6-2010. The following are present.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Appellant
\n       Shri Major Singh
\n       Respondents
\n       Shri Kamal Bhagat, JS (R-II)
\n       Shri P. P. Haldar, DS (R.V)<\/p>\n
                                        2<\/span>
\n        Respondent Shri P. P. Haldar submitted that they had no difficulty in
\nproviding the names of candidates who appeared in the examination but
\nproviding the experience also would amount to invasion of privacy and
\ntransgressing a fiduciary relationship.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
       On the question of ‘fiduciary relationship’ we have a definitive ruling of
\nthe High Court of Delhi In his judgment in WP(C) 228\/2009, CPO Supreme
\nCourt of India vs. SC Agrawal & Anr.              Hon’ble Ravindra Bhat J has
\ndiscussed the concept of fiduciary relationship in some detail. The HC ruling
\nin this case is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       54. The petitioners argue that assuming that asset declarations,
\n       in terms of the 1997 constitute “information” under the Act, yet
\n       they cannot be disclosed – or even particulars about whether,
\n       and who made such declarations, cannot be disclosed – as it
\n       would entail breach of a fiduciary duty by the CJI. The
\n       petitioners rely on Section 8 (1) (f) to submit that a public
\n       authority is under no obligation to furnish “information available
\n       to a person in his fiduciary relationship”. The petitioners
\n       emphasize that the 1997 Resolution crucially states that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               “The declaration made by the Judges or the Chief
\n               Justice, as the case may be, shall be confidential.”
\n       The respondent, and interveners, counter the submission and
\n       say that CJI does not stand in the position of a fiduciary to the
\n       judges of the Supreme Court, who occupy high Constitutional
\n       office; they enjoy the same judicial powers, and immunities and
\n       that the CJI cannot exercise any kind of control over them. In
\n       these circumstances, there is no “fiduciary” relationship, least of
\n       all in relation to making the asset declarations available to the
\n       CJI, who holds it because of his status as CJI. It is argued that a
\n       fiduciary relationship is created, where one person depends, on,
\n       or entrusts his affairs to 55. It is necessary to first discern what a
\n       fiduciary relationship is, since the term has not been defined in
\n       the Act. In Bristol & West Building Society v. Mathew [1998] Ch
\n       1, the term “fiduciary”, was described as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               “A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for
\n               and on behalf of another in a particular matter in
\n               circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust
\n               and confidence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       Dale & Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan,<\/a> (2005) 1 SCC
\n       212 and Needle Industries (India) Ltd v. Needle Industries
\n       (Newey) India Holding Ltd<\/a>: 1981 (3) SCC 333 establish that
\n       Directors of a company owe fiduciary duties to its shareholders.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In P.V. Sankara Kurup v. Leelavathy Nambiar,<\/a> (1994) 6 SCC 68,
\n       the Supreme Court held that an agent and power of attorney<\/p>\n
                                          3<\/span>
\n holder can be said to owe a fiduciary relationship to the
\nprincipal.\n<\/p>\n
56. In a recent decision (Mr. Krishna Gopal Kakani v. Bank of
\nBaroda<\/a> 2008 (13) SCALE 160) the Supreme Court had to
\ndecide whether a transaction resulted in a fiduciary relationship.
\nMoney was sought to be recovered by the plaintiff, from a bank,
\nwho had moved the court for auction of goods imported, and
\nretained the proceeds; the trail court overruled the objection to
\nmaintainability, stating that the bank held the surplus (of the
\nproceeds) in a fiduciary capacity. The High Court upset the trial
\ncourt’s findings, ruling that the bank did not act in a fiduciary
\ncapacity. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s findings.
\nThe court noticed Section 88 of the Trusts Act, which reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
       “Section 88. Advantage gained by fiduciary. – Where a
\n       trustee, executor, partner, agent, director of a company,
\n       legal advisor, or other person bound in a fiduciary
\n       character to protect the interests of another person, by
\n       availing himself of his character, gains for himself any
\n       pecuniary advantage, or where any person so are, or
\n       may be, adverse to those of such other person and
\n       thereby gains for himself a pecuniary advantage, he must
\n       hold for the benefit of such other person the advantage
\n       so gained.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Affirming the High Court’s findings that the bank did not owe a
\nfiduciary responsibility to the appellant, it was held by the
\nSupreme Court, that:\n<\/p>\n
       “9. An analysis of this Section would show that the Bank,
\n       to whom the money had been entrusted, was not in the
\n       capacity set out in the provision itself. The question of
\n       any fiduciary relationship therefore arising between the
\n       two must therefore be ruled out. It bears reiteration that
\n       there is no evidence to show that any trust had been
\n       created with respect to the suit money.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The following kinds of relationships may broadly be categorized
\nas “fiduciary”:\n<\/p>\n
    \u2022 Trustee\/beneficiary (Section 88, Indian Trusts Act, 1882)
\n    \u2022 Legal guardians \/ wards (Section 20, Guardians and
\n    Wards Act, 1890)
\n    \u2022 Lawyer\/client;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    \u2022 Executors and administrators \/ legatees and heirs
\n    \u2022 Board of directors \/ company
\n    \u2022 Liquidator\/company
\n    \u2022 Receivers, trustees in bankruptcy and assignees in
\n    insolvency \/ creditors
\n    \u2022 Doctor\/patient
\n    \u2022 Parent\/child:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
57. The Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005, defines
\nfiduciary relationship as<\/p>\n
                                4<\/span>
\n                   “a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act
\n                  for the benefit of the other on the matters within the
\n                  scope of the relationship….Fiduciary relationship usually
\n                  arise in one of the four situations (1) when one person
\n                  places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who is a
\n                  result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2)
\n                  when one person assumes control and responsibility over
\n                  another, (3) when one person has a duty to act or give
\n                  advice to another on matters falling within the scope of
\n                  the relationship, or (4) when there is specific relationship
\n                  that has traditionally be recognized as involving fiduciary
\n                  duties, as with a lawyer and a client, or a stockbroker and
\n                  a customer”\n<\/p>\n
           58. From the above discussion, it may be seen that a fiduciary
\n           relationship is one whereby a person places complete
\n           confidence in another in regard to a particular transaction or his
\n           general affairs or business. The relationship need not be
\n           “formally” or “legally” ordained, or established, like in the case of
\n           a written trust; but can be one of moral or personal
\n           responsibility, due to the better or superior knowledge or
\n           training, or superior status of the fiduciary as compared to the
\n           one whose affairs he handles…….The content of such provision
\n           may include certain kind of relationships of public officials, such
\n           as doctor-patient relations; teacher-pupil relationships, in
\n           government schools and colleges; agents of governments; even
\n           attorneys and lawyers who appear and advise public authorities
\n           covered by the Act. ”\n<\/p>\n
           On the question of invasion of privacy the relevant clause of the RTI
\nAct reads as follows: –\n<\/p>\n
           Section 8 (1) (j)
\n           ” 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 Public Information
\n           Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate
\n           authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public
\n           interest justifies the disclosure of such information.’<\/p>\n
           From the above it will be clear that the relationship of a candidate for an
\nexamination with the examining authority is not a fiduciary relationship, although
\nthat of a pupil and teacher might be. Besides section 8 (1) (j) is specific in that it
\nexempts from disclosure any information ‘which has no relationship to any
\npublic activity or interest1, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the
\nprivacy of the individual’. In this case what is sought is information provided to
\n1<\/span>
\n    Underlined by us to emphasise the implication<\/p>\n
                                                    5<\/span>
\n a public organisation for appearance in a public examination. The public
\norganisation itself goes by the name of the Union Public Service2 Commission.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Under the circumstance this information can on account be treated as personal
\nor held in confidence, which would warrant invasion of section 11 (1). For these
\nreasons the appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
           CPIO, Shri P. P. Haldar, Dy. Secretary (R.V) will now provide the
\ninformation sought at point (a) to the RTI application of 27.8.2008 to appellant
\nShri Major Singh within fifteen working days of the date of receipt of this
\ndecision notice. We notice, however, that the CPIO has been punctilious in
\ngiving timely information to the appellant Shri Major Singh in matters that he
\nconsidered accessible. There will, therefore be no cost.\n<\/p>\n
           Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
\nto the parties.\n<\/p>\n
 (Wajahat Habibullah)
\n Chief Information Commissioner
\n 11-6-2010<\/p>\n
 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\n application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
\n of this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
 (Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
\n Joint Registrar
\n 11-6-2010<\/p>\n
2<\/span>
\n    Underlined by us to emphasise the objective of the public authority.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Major Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 June, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000403 dated 27.3.2009 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant: Shri Major Singh Respondent: Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Decision announced 11.6.’10 FACTS By an application of 27-8-2008 Shri Major Singh of Vijaynagar, Indore […]<\/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-75032","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Major Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 June, 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-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Major Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-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=\"2010-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-16T01:53:44+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-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Major Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-16T01:53:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2007,\"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-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr.Major Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-16T01:53:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Major Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 June, 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.Major Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 June, 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-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Major Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-16T01:53:44+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-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Major Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-16T01:53:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010"},"wordCount":2007,"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-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010","name":"Mr.Major Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-16T01:53:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-major-singh-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-11-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Major Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 11 June, 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\/75032","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=75032"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75032\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75032"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75032"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}