PCS-J Exam 2022 ‘Irregularities’ | Justice Govind Mathur Commission Submits Its Report Before Allahabad High Court

The event comes virtually 6 months after a Division Bench of the HC comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh appointed Justice Mathur as the pinnacle of an impartial fee to look at critical issues raised by a number of candidates concerning inconsistencies and malpractices within the conduct and analysis of the examination.

As reported earlier, the Court docket had urged the Fee to file its report by Might thirty first, 2025, with solutions on a number of essential points, together with:

• Methods and means to make the analysis technique of UPPCS (J) Examination extra conscious of the wants of choice and extra reliable for all stakeholders, together with the UPPSC;
• Steps to be taken to implement such processes and procedures;
• Mechanisms to be revised or launched to test deviations from accepted strategies and practices prescribed by the Fee;
• Causes and circumstances which will have prevented the Fee from detecting its personal errors and providing well timed self-correction earlier than the declaration of outcomes on August 30, 2023.

The Fee was constituted after the lead petitioner, Shravan Pandey, by Senior Advocate Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi and Advocate Shashwat Anand, approached the HC alleging that his English reply sheet had been tampered with and that the handwriting didn’t match his personal.

Other than Pandey, a number of different candidates additionally approached the courtroom with their grievances, searching for the issuance of appointment letters primarily based on allegations of inconsistencies and malpractices in marking.

The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Fee (UPPSC) in July 2024 itself admitted to an error within the preparation of the benefit listing for 50 candidates within the PCS-J 2022 Mains examination.

Noting the overlapping nature of a number of petitions, the Court docket had emphasised the necessity for a complete and impartial inquiry to safeguard the integrity of judicial appointments.

The Court docket had additionally underscored that the final practices and procedures of the Fee may have reform and upgradation to make sure standardised and credible analysis mechanisms.

The Court docket identified the next deficiencies, noting that the identical had been required to be minimised.

(a) a number of corrections have been made in lots of Reply Booklets by Examiners – to the marks which will have been initially written;

(b) these corrections made, don’t point out any goal purpose for a similar. The very fact such correction is made offers rise to doubts with and disputes raised by candidates, particularly the place marks first written are lowered;

(c) some of the corrections made are by means of overwriting made by the Examiners and others the place marks first written have been scored out. At instances recent marks awarded haven’t been countersigned by the Examiner;

(d) wherever marks have been thus corrected, the identical haven’t been countersigned by any impartial authority of the Fee, be it’s the Chief Examiner or some different accountable authority;

(e) inter-change of Guidelines of Grasp Faux Code was an impermissible blunder

(f) query papers significantly in Regulation, had been extra theoretical than sensible;

(g) Mannequin Reply Key significantly for the papers in Regulation, seem to lean to check the theoretical information of the candidates and they don’t seem to put emphasis to check the flexibility of the candidates to analyse and purpose – the essential attributes of a decide;

(h) the Mannequin Reply Key didn’t present for scale of marks to be adhered to by all Examiners as could have helped to implement a uniform scale of marking by contemplating the extent/extent of correctness or error of particular person reply responses;

(i) high quality of analysis course of and the analysis made are usually not of desired high quality. Too many corrections have been made by the Examiners, a few of them after scoring out the marks initially written and others by over-writing. Not all such corrections have been counter signed by the Examiners within the margin towards the reply responses;

(j) the place zero (‘0’) marks have been awarded towards any reply response given to a descriptive/subjective reply, no clear marking coverage could have preexisted. It could have allowed for a risk of inconsistent marking requirements, utilized by completely different Examiners.

Accordingly, the Court docket requested Justice Mathur to just accept the Fee particularly with respect to the factors famous by the Court docket within the context of all Reply Booklets of Written Examination of UPPCS (J)-2022.

In flip, the UPPSC has been directed to make correct preparations for the keep and dealing of the Fee, at Prayagraj and to supply sufficient Secretarial assist to the Fee, all through to assist the Fee full its duties in time, moreover offering sufficient workplace area to the Fee inside the campus of the UPPSC, Prayagraj.

The fee has additionally been requested to protect all Reply Booklets and all paperwork pertaining to the conduct of U.P.P.C.S.(J) 31 of 32 2022 Written Examination and for manufacturing and examination of the identical by the Fee.