HC rules in favour of candidate barred from civil service exams for 10 years
- After arrest, Jitender Singh Tomar resigns as Delhi Law Minister
- Army begins operation near Myanmar border, kills militants involved in Manipur ambush
- Joint CP Mukesh Kumar Meena hits back, says he took charge at ACB under L-G's orders
- Congress president Sonia Gandhi accuses PM Modi of 'U-turns, falsehoods'
- UP minister booked for burning journalist to death over Facebook post
The Allahabad High Court on Monday set aside orders of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC), in which a candidate was debarred for 10 years from appearing in any competitive examination held by the two commissions.
The court said that the punishment was disproportionately high to the offence.
The order of the UPSC, passed in 2010, said the petitioner — Allahabad-based Ajit Kumar Singh — had furnished wrong information on the number of attempts he has already made, while appearing in Civil Services (Mains) Examination of 2009.
The UPPSC had adopted the same order without issuing notice to the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the UPPSC's order saying it should have issued notice to it before adopting the UPSC's order.
Petitioner's counsel Yogesh Agarwal said: "The petitioner can now participate in examinations that are held by the UPPSC, depending on his eligibility and other qualifications. Also, barring the Civil Services Examination, the petitioner can take part in any other examination conducted by the UPSC."
Passing the order, a division bench of Justices Sheo Kumar Singh and Virendra Vikram Singh said: "We found that the punishment to the petitioner for disclosing wrong number of attempts made by him in terms of not only debarring him from the Civil Services (Mains) Examinations 2009, but also debarring him for a further period of 10 years was definitely disproportionate."
The court also said that neither the UPSC and nor the UPPSC brought anything on record to suggest that the petitioner had a malicious intention. Therefore, the possibility of the petitioner having made a mistake could not be ruled out, it said. On the issue of UPPSC "blindly following" the UPSC order, the court said: "The action of the UPPSC in blindly accepting the UPSC's mandate without issuance of the mandatory notice cannot be held to be legal exercise of the powers of the UPPSC."