Rajesh Pandey
In an important development concerning the PCS-J 2022 exam irregularities, the Allahabad High Court has restrained parties from publishing any part of the affidavit exchanged concerning the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPCS) ‘s award of marks.
The court passed this order on Monday after taking on record the compliance affidavit filed by the chairman of UPPSC. Hearing a writ petition filed by Shravan Pandey, a division bench comprising of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh further directed the officer not to issue a certified or other copy of the facts disclosed in the compliance affidavit filed by the Chairman, UP Public Service Commission
This development comes a week after the UPPSC acknowledged in the HC an error in preparing the merit list for the written examination of 50 PCS-J (Provincial Civil Services – Judicial) 2022 candidates.
This admission was made by the UPPSC in a writ petition filed by a candidate who appeared in the UP Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Mains) Examination 2022 in May 2023 and had claimed discrepancies in his handwriting in English Mains paper.
Taking into account the admission of the UPPSC, the HC had directed the chairman UPPSC to file his personal affidavit regarding the change of marks that have to be corrected in view of the error noted in the inquiry report dated June 22, 2024. Secondly, full details of candidates who were ineligible to be called for interview, once the correction is made, together with the marks originally awarded and the corrected marks. Thirdly, full details of the candidates together with the marks originally awarded and the corrected marks who ought to have been called for interview. Fourthly, the exact details if any other mistake was noted with respect to any /all answer books (paperwise of all six papers of UP PCS – J Examination 2022) in which master fake code may have been interchanged or any other error of like nature occurred with respect thereto.
On Monday (July 8), the petitioner filed a supplemental affidavit and the UP Public Service Commission chairman filed a compliance affidavit, which were taken on record. Importantly, the court also granted three days time to the counsel for the UPPSC to file a reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner.
In its order dated July 8, the court restrained the parties from publishing any part of the affidavit and posted the matter for further hearing on July 19.
