Chhattisgarh High Court order on Varsha Dorgre’s challenge to the Public Service Commission Examination 2003
Varsha Dogre, Deputy Superintendent of the Raipur Central Jail, has been suspended from service on May 6th 2017. She has been unfairly victimised as she blew the whistle on sexual abuse of minors by the Chhattisgarh Police, in her facebook post (now deleted). She alleged human rights violations by the state in ‘violation of service rules’. Citing indisipline, the Chattisgarh government suspended her from service. In her facebook post Varsha Dogre had shed light on the darkside of custodial torture by the Chhattisgarh Police and the sexual abuse of minor adivasi girls inside prisons. She raised critical questions on the governments role in handling the conflict between the Maoists and the State.
Read below the July 2016 High Court order In Varsha Dogre v. St. of Chattisgarh and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 4028 of 200), challenging the selection made by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission in the Public Service Commission examination in the year 2003 on various grounds.
The allegations of the Petitioners in a nutshell are that the selection process of the Commission is full of irregularities, corruption and mistakes. At every stage of the examination, there has been bungling and corruption, and as such, the entire selection process needs to be quashed. The Petitioners firstly submit that the question papers of the main examination were not properly marked and they have attempted to show that the marking is highly improper. By drawing the attention of this Court to certain answer-papers, it is submitted that since the marking at this stage is improper, the answer sheets of all the candidates who appeared in the main examination should be got evaluated again.
The Court observed “The aforesaid communication clearly indicates that the Commission had admitted most of the mistakes. The Commission had admitted that there was extensive irregularities in the examination. It had also admitted that Petitioner-Ku. Varsha Dongre was deprived of her selection and action should be taken against the officers who prepared and declared a vitiated result depriving her from selection. With regard to the allegations made by the Anti Corruption Bureau, the Commission admitted that three candidates who had higher marks were not selected. It also admitted that reservation rules were not applied properly depriving five candidates of selection. It also admitted that there was discrimination and in one case, a person without permanent caste certificate was
appointed whereas in other cases, the candidates similarly situated were not appointed. It also admitted that one general category candidate was appointed against the post of reserved category. With regard to interpolation in the preference form of Ku. Varsha Dongre, there is no clear cut admission, but it is not disputed that there is some element of bungling. It is indeed surprising that despite the mistakes being admitted by the Commission, no action was taken to rectify the same”
” In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that there were large number of irregularities in the selection process for the Civil Services Examination, 2003. It is also more than apparent that these are not minor mistakes, but mistakes which totally vitiate the entire selection process. As pointed out above, there are mistakes in totalling of marks. There are mistakes in applying the scaling formula. Even after the formula has been applied, there are mistakes in calculating and totally the marks. Interpolations have been made by officials of the Commission. The candidates who were not eligible for being called for interview have been called for interview. Those candidates who were eligible to be called for interview, have not been called for the same. The candidates who belong to general category have been given undue benefit by appointing them against the reserved category. All these amongst other mistakes have been pointed out by the Anti Corruption Bureau in June, 2007 but no steps were taken to rectify the same even though an application was filed before the High Court seeking permission to rectify the mistakes. This
Court almost 9 years back told the Commission that it should rectify the mistakes, but unfortunately that has not been done.”