The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) on Friday released the revised final result of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination-2022 (PCS J). Following the amendment, two candidates selected in the final result released on August 30, 2023, were eliminated, while two new candidates were selected. However, the Commission has not officially provided any information about these four candidates. The commission released the final result of PCS J 2022 on August 30 last year. Dissatisfied with the result, candidate Shravan Pandey, who appeared in the main examination, had filed a petition in the High Court saying that his copy had been modified, he came to know about this after seeing the copy through RTI.
When the matter was investigated on the directions of the High Court, it was found that the copies of the main examination kept in a pack of 25 each had been tampered with. This means that altogether 50 candidates were affected by this. The Commission called all the candidates who appeared for the main examination and showed them their copies at the end of July and then published the revised result of the main examination on August 17. Five candidates were successful in the interview and despite being eligible, they did not appear in the interview. It could have happened. After conducting the interview, the final result was announced on Friday.
Petitioner Shravan Pandey was also not selected
The roll numbers of the five candidates declared winners by the Commission on August 17 and released included the roll number of Shravan Kumar Pandey, who had filed a petition in the High Court over the result. These five roll numbers are not visible in the results released on Friday. It is clear that none of these five were selected. Commission sources claim that among the candidates affected by the change in wording were those who had given interviews but could not be selected. It is speculated that the two new candidates selected may be two similar candidates. Last year, 302 people were successful, while now 303 have succeeded. It is said that one candidate filed a petition in the High Court over this examination, due to which the Commission withheld the result of one post last year and now its result has also been declared. Due to this, the number has increased from 302 to 303.
Questions are being raised: why is the commission hiding the name?
Following the publication of the revised final results, questions have been raised again about the role of the Commission. Questions are being raised as to why the Commission is hiding the names of the eliminated and selected candidates. Instead of mentioning this in the revised result, the Commission has published the list of 303 selected candidates in the same way as 302 candidates were published last year. Looking at both lists, one more thing becomes clear: after the result was revised, there was a change in the ranking of many candidates.
Disclaimer:
The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the post for any purpose.
We respect the intellectual property rights of content creators. If you are the owner of any material featured on our website and have concerns about its use, please contact us. We are committed to addressing any copyright issues promptly and will remove any material within 2 days of receiving a request from the rightful owner.