An issue related to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) examination has reached the Supreme Court. As part of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), a request was made to cancel the preliminary general civil service exam for 2025 and conduct an independent investigation into alleged irregularities.
Social activist Harishran Dewan filed this petition, demanding an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or an independent committee chaired by retired judges. The petition challenges the preliminary exam held on April 19th and calls for a timely review of the claimed deficiencies.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court demanding the annulment of the JPSC preliminary general civil service exam for 2025. The petition also requests a re-examination after a thorough review of the alleged violations. The petitioner insists on the necessity of an impartial and independent investigation, proposing that the matter be transferred to the CBI or that an independent commission be formed under the guidance of retired judges.
The petition presents a detailed plan for the structure of the proposed commission. It requires that the chairman of the commission be a retired Supreme Court judge or the chief justice of a higher court who is not a resident of Jharkhand. The petition also specifies that the investigative team should include experts in forensic science, information technology, exam security, OMR analysis, cybersecurity, and public administration. The goal is to objectively verify the alleged violations and prevent any negligence during the investigation.
Furthermore, the petition demands that all necessary documents and records related to the exam be preserved until the investigation is complete. These materials include original OMR sheets, test questions, and answer keys. Biometric data, video recordings from surveillance cameras, registration logs, examination center reports, and scanning and grading records are also requested to be preserved. The petitioner argues that preserving this data will eliminate the risk of destruction or alteration of important evidence during the investigation. However, it should be noted that these are merely the demands and allegations of the petitioner, and the final decision rests with the Supreme Court.
