SC agrees to examine plea on 'wrong' questions in UPSC preliminary exam
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine a plea which has alleged that two questions in the 2017 preliminary examination of the prestigious Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) were 'wrong'.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to examine a plea which has alleged that two questions in the 2017 preliminary examination of the prestigious Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) were "wrong".
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Dipak Misra, asked the petitioner, who was arguing the matter in-person, to serve a copy of the plea to the Centre's counsel and fixed it for hearing on 1 August.
However, when the petitioner asked the bench, also comprising Justices Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar, as to what will happen if the results of the UPSC prelims exam, 2017 is declared by 1 August, the court said, "Do you think we will stay the result? We will see what is to be done".
UPSC aspirant Ashita Chawla, who has filed the petition, claimed before the apex court that a "couple of questions" in the UPSC preliminary examination were "wrong".
"There are rules for determining whether the questions are wrong? The result is yet to be declared. It (result) will come out any day," she told the bench.
The bench observed that her plea cannot be treated as a public interest litigation (PIL) as she had only put forth her grievance in the personal capacity.
The UPSC had conducted the civil service preliminary exam 2017 on 18 June. The preliminary examination consisted of two papers having objective type questions and they carried a maximum of 400 marks.
The petitioner has claimed that this year's preliminary examination paper had questions with multiple answers and many of them could have been answered on the subjective interpretation of the examinees.
She has also referred to earlier judgements of the apex court which had said that a question has two or more corrects answers should be considered as incorrect.
The apex court asked the chief secretaries of Andhra Pradesh and Bihar to explain why disbursals - Rs 50,000 ex gratia for COVID-19 death - have been so few in their states
The ministry said that "it's duly advised, advertised and communicated through print and social media platforms that all citizens should get vaccinated. However, no person can be forced to be vaccinated against their wishes".
The suit said that as the general consent given to the central agency by the Trinamool Congress government has been withdrawn, the FIRs lodged cannot be proceeded with