In a case that has raised significant questions about the fairness of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) exams, the Allahabad High Court expressed grave concern over the allegations of a scam and foul play in the 2022 Provincial Civil Services (Judicial) examination. The petitioner in the case of Shravan Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (Writ – A No. 9055 of 2024), argued that the scale of discrepancies in the examination results far exceeds the 50 candidates initially admitted by the UPPSC, pointing to a much larger scam and foulplay in the exam.
The petitioner, had earlier in July, by his Supplement Affidavit and Amendment along with Interim Applications, called for stringent actions against the erring officers of the UPPSC, including lodging an FIR and investigation by the the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the formation of a High-Powered Committee to investigate and supervise the matter. The petitioner also sought for a complete re-evaluation of the exam copies for all candidates, alleging that the examination process has been tainted by serious irregularities.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi and Advocate Shashwat Anand, representing the petitioner, emphasized that the list of affected candidates could be far more extensive than the UPPSC has acknowledged. Naqvi argued that a comprehensive probe is necessary to unearth the full extent of the misconduct, urging the court to mandate a CBI investigation to ensure transparency and accountability.
The UPPSC had issued a revised result for the PCS (J) exam on August 30, 2024, cancelling the selection of two candidates and recommending two new candidates. This decision was taken on a suo motu basis following a tallying of marks, but the petitioner argued that the revision is only the tip of the iceberg. The petitioner maintained that many more candidates are affected by the alleged manipulation of results.
The court, presided over by Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh, questioned why the UPPSC proceeded with issuing a revised result while the issues raised by the petitioner, were still pending before the court. The court noted that this raised serious concerns about whether the Commission had acted within its authority and whether it was appropriate to revise results after appointments had been made and candidates had already joined their posts.
The Court expressed skepticism over the UPPSC’s actions, stating that the Commission’s decision to issue a revised result, particularly when the allegations were under judicial scrutiny, “requires serious consideration.” The court has directed the Commission to submit a detailed affidavit outlining the steps it took in re-tallying the marks and explaining why the fresh recommendations were made. Additionally, the state’s counsel, Ms. Kirtika Singh, has been asked to obtain written instructions from the Principal Secretary (Appointments), Uttar Pradesh, to clarify the state’s position.
The petitioner has also raised concerns that the UPPSC’s actions, including its decision to issue the revised result, could be a deliberate attempt to obscure the extent of the alleged irregularities. The call for a High-Powered Committee to oversee the investigation reflects the petitioner’s belief that only a thorough, impartial probe can ensure justice for all affected candidates.
Senior Advocate G.K. Singh, representing the UPPSC, along with Nisheeth Yadav, defended the Commission’s decision, asserting that the revision was conducted to rectify genuine errors in the tallying of marks. However, the court appears unconvinced and has scheduled the next hearing for September 13, 2024, as one of the top ten cases on the docket.
The case has drawn attention to the larger issue of transparency and accountability in competitive examinations, particularly those that lead to public service appointments. If the petitioner’s allegations are proven, it could lead to far-reaching consequences, not only for the UPPSC but also for the broader system of public recruitment in the state.
