The Supreme Court reserved its order on the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission’s (UPPSC) decision to reject the application for the Judicial Service (Junior Division) Examination by a candidate and directed them to declare the results of the petitioner.
The Bench comprising of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia pronounced that the rejection of an application of a petitioner at the hands of the state commission shall not come in the way of the declaration of the petitioner’s result.
The Court lay aside the impugned order of the UPPSC that rejected the candidature of the petitioner-candidate to appear in the Mains Examination.
“While reading the operative side of the order, the court said that it wants to direct the respondent state commission to declare the result of the petitioner and send the result to the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The case pertains to not allowing one Sadaf Imran to appear in the Judicial Service (Junior Division) Main Examination – 2022 conducted by the UPPSC in the month of May 2023.
The petitioner had cleared the preliminary examination and therefore was eligible to appear in the mains examination.
The reason why UPPSC refused to allow the petitioner to appear in the Mains exam on the ground that she had failed to submit the hard copies of the mains examination application form within the time period, as it reached the commission by a delay of one working day.
It was contended by the petitioner that due to deficiency of services on the part of the Post Office, her application form reached the commission’s office with a delay of one working day. Further, it was contended by the petitioner that the Mains Examination application form was duly submitted online and accepted by the UPPSC, but still, she was denied to appear in the Mains examination, and her candidature to appear in the examination was cancelled.
The petitioner appealed before the UPPSC against the cancellation of her candidature, but eventually her appeal was rejected by the Commission. Challenging this order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming that her fundamental right to appear in the examination under Article 21 is violated.