Standard Release Form: Fill & Download for Free

If nothing else works, file an RTI. Give your name, date of birth father’s name, year of attempt, registration number and name of examination in the request.Here’s how:Go to https://rtionline.gov.inThe home page looks like this—No need to register. Click on the ‘Submit Request’ tab.You’ll get a standard ‘release form’, just check the box and click 'Submit'.You'll get this screenType 'UPSC' in the search field and you will get the appropriate department to whom you must address your request, the other two fields will be automatically filled.Fill in the other details and your request in simple, neutral language, don't use ANY characters apart from letters, numbers, periods (.) and commas(,), NOTHING ELSE.Make the payment, net banking will give you the least problems.For an expenditure of 10 INR and an hour of your time, you will get a letter from UPSC with the roll no. clearly mentioned, within a month.I’ve done it, no hassles.Good luck.

He doesn’t fear lawsuits because he’s not doing anything that is a crime or a tort.Let’s be clear: it is absolutely true that Baron Cohen deceives his subjects. He (and his production company) will intentionally mislead the subjects as to the nature of the recording, who the host is, etc. After all, the subjects always think Baron Cohen is one of his characters. However, it is neither a tort nor a crime to lie to a normal person [it is a crime to lie to federal law enforcement]. His subjects are always private individuals or non-law enforcement, and so the lie isn’t any issue. Deception only rises to the level of a tort if you extract something of value - money, property, services - from that person.So, in sum, Baron Cohen NEVER, EVER, EVER gets anything of value from anyone he meets with. In all his years, he has never taken money, gifts, etc.Now, the next important point is that he never, EVER, uses editing techniques to portray his subjects in a false light. If you record someone, but edit the video to make them look foolish, in some jurisdictions you could be sued for what’s called False-Light Defamation. Notably The Daily Show did this sometimes, but seems to have avoided suits. Baron Cohen, though, NEVER does this.His subjects hoist themselves by their own petards.Let’s look at his most recent example, Joe Arpaio. ('Who is America?' Clip: Sacha Baron Cohen Humiliates Disgraced Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio with a Talking Donut) There’s no way to sugar-coat this: by pretending to be a YouTube host from Europe, he first gets Arpaio to talk about his first “handjob” (Arpaio appears to believe he’s referring to a job with his hands, not the sexual act). Then, cultimating the segment, there is the following exchange:SBC: “If Donald Trump calls you up after this and says, ‘Sheriff Joe, I want to offer you an amazing blow job,’ would you say yes?”Arpaio: “I may have to say yes.”Now, his response is here:Joe Arpaio on Sacha Baron Cohen: I ‘Never Agreed’ to Blow Job From TrumpUnsurprisingly - and, I think, truthfully - he says he just didn’t understand SBC. That’s fine, but he still chose to answer yes. SBC didn’t edit him, or change the audio, or anything of the sort.There is no tort here. You have no right - particularly as a public figure - against people using your own language/actions to make you look the fool.[EDIT because people have asked for more detail:The first legal obstacle that tripped up Cohen's interviewees was their own signatures. Before filming, most of the plaintiffs signed legal releases entitled "Standard Consent Agreement" or something similar. In those contracts, the interviewee agreed that he or she "waives, and agrees not to bring at any time in the future, any claims against the Producer … or anyone associated with the Film, that include assertions of" every conceivable cause of action that Cohen's attorneys could come up with. So when the litigants sued Cohen and his cohorts, they were immediately confronted with the fact that they had agreed in writing not to do so.Do Sacha Baron Cohen's Targets Have a Shot at Winning a Lawsuit? (Guest Column)[When filming Borat] The producers would give all subjects a release form which, conveniently, didn’t identify where the footage would be appearing. Often times, they’d hand out release forms en masse. “We’d have someone in the lobby of a hotel with release forms,” director Larry Charles told Squidoo. “We’d tell people we were shooting today and they may be in the background of a shot. Then they’d get in the elevator and, boom, two naked guys would come running in.” Most people were so quick to sign the forms that they didn’t notice any irregularities.How Sacha Baron Cohen Keeps From Getting SuedEND EDIT]

Technically, no. If you sign a release stating that you have received money, then you are agreeing that you have already received the money. The exact phrasing of the agreement is key here, though. If you have specific questions about your rights and liabilities, you should secure the services of a licensed attorney to review all the relevant details.Given the details, it would have been trivial for the lawyer to amend the agreement to state that the money would be sent upon receipt of the signed agreement.