Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.35 seconds)

Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011

1. Section 6(1) of the RTI Act provides the right to seek information. However, it must be exercised reasonably and not abused. The Supreme Court of India "In Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497", has stated that the Act is meant to promote transparency, not to become a tool for harassment or to settle personal scores.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 8906 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978

"19. In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. This is because non- communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways : (1) Had the entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future (2) He would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its upgradation. Hence non-communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 134 - Cited by 1982 - M H Beg - Full Document
1