RAKESH KUMAR THAKUR Vs. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who appeared at the examination for appointment to the Indian Forest Service conducted by the Union Public Service Commission has been, by the impugned order, held to have abetted another student in using unfair means and he has, accordingly, been debarred from appearing at the examinations conducted by the Union Public Service Commission for a period of ten years. His candidature in the aforesaid examination has also been cancelled.

(2.) According to the case in the writ petition, the petitioner has been a good student having obtained first class in the University examinations. He appeared at the Central Civil Service Preliminary Examination in 1982 and qualified for sitting at the final examination. In the meantime, the examination for appointment to the Indian Forest Service was also held and the petitioner became a candidate. He sat at the examination and was thereafter preparing for his final examination for appointment to Civil Service when he received the show cause notice, Annexure 3, asking him to explain as to why steps should not be taken against him. The letter stated that one Jitendra Kumar Singh was seated immediately before the petitioner in the same row in the examination hall and it was observed that the answers to questions 2 and 5 in Physics paper were almost identical. The answers to questions (l)(a) and l(d) and some portion of question l(c) were also identical with Jitendra Kumar Singh. The letter further stated that the similarity suggested that Jitendra Kumar Singh had copied out the answers from the answer books of the petitioner and this could not have been possible without his connivance.

(3.) The Rule 10 of the Rules of the Indian Forest Service Examination, 1982, permits the authorities to make an inquiry in such circumstances and penalise a guilty person. According to the petitioner, he received the show cause notice in the midst of his examination for Civil Services and since the time for filing the show cause was inadequate, he hurriedly gave his explanation as contained in Annexure 4. The impugned order in Annexure 5 was thereafter passed. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the same.