ANURADHA GUPTA Vs. UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for the Respondent.

(2.) THE Petitioner was a candidate for examination conducted by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (from hereinafter referred to as Commission) pertaining to the post of Assistant Review Officers (from hereinafter referred to as ARO) in State Secretariat and Commission.

(3.) MR . B.D. Kandpal, learned Counsel appearing for Commission has vehemently contested this allegation and stated that this was not so in any case and prior to the typing test, instructions had been given to the candidates. Had there been any fault in the computers or any such material given to the Petitioner, she should have complained of about this. These are factual disputes, which have been agitated in the writ petition. Nothing has been shown by the Petitioner on the materials presented by her to show that there was actually an error in the typing test conducted by Commission. As such, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.