The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) has released the revised results for the UP Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Main (Written) Examination-2022, also known as PCS (J) Mains-2022. The updated results include five candidates who were initially marked as unsuccessful but have now qualified for the interview stage.
Background and Cause for Revision
The revision of results follows an appeal by candidate Shravan Pandey, who reported discrepancies in his answer sheets. Pandey claimed that his English answer sheet had been altered and that sheets were torn from another answer sheet, affecting his results. Acting on his petition, the Allahabad High Court ordered the UPPSC to produce the answer sheets for all six question papers for in-person inspection. The investigation revealed that the answer papers of 50 candidates had been switched.
Next Steps for Affected Candidates
The UPPSC has announced that separate interviews will be conducted for these five candidates, with the date and time to be disclosed later by UPPSC Controller of Examination Harsh Dev Pandey.
Legal Proceedings and Temporary Status of Results
The revised results are temporary and subject to the final ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Shravan Pandey’s petition and other related cases. The next hearing for Pandey’s case is scheduled for August 28.
Examination and Results Timeline
The UP Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Main Examination-2022 was conducted from May 22 to May 25, 2022. The initial results and marks were declared on August 30 and November 1, 2022. After Pandey accessed his files through an RTI request, his answer sheets were reviewed, leading to the High Court’s intervention. On June 5, 2024, the Allahabad High Court directed the UPPSC to produce the answer sheets, and a thorough inspection of all 18,042 answer sheets was conducted. Following this, UPPSC provided the response forms to applicants from June 20 to July 30, 2024. The commission confirmed on August 13 that the revised results would be published shortly after correcting errors in the roll numbering process.
This case highlights the importance of transparency and accuracy in the examination evaluation process, and the UPPSC’s commitment to rectifying errors when discovered.
