- (1.) THE petitioners applied and appeared in the selections held by the U.P. Public Services Commission (in short, the Commission) for appointment on 546 vacant posts of Health Education Officer, under the family welfare programme vide Advertisement No. 2/2005 -06. By these writ petitions, they have prayed for quashing the entire select list dated 5.2.2008 published the Commission, after summoning the entire records of selection and for directions to the respondents to hold fresh selections in accordance with the law after giving age relaxation to the candidates, who have already applied in the selections.
(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to these writ petitions, are that the Commission issued advertisement No. 2/2005 -06 on 2.7.2005 with the last date of application on 22.7.2005, for appointment on 546 posts of Swastha Shiksha Adhikari (Health Education Officer), a Gazetted post in the pay scale of Rs. 5000 -150 -8000, out of which 256 posts were provided to be filled up from General category candidates; 158 posts from Other Backward Class candidates, 121 posts from Scheduled Caste candidates and 11 posts from Scheduled Tribe candidates. The reservations were also provided on horizontal basis to the dependents of freedom fighters, disabled persons and women in accordance with the rules applicable for such reservations. The advertisement provided a Graduate Degree in Sociology or Social Science or in any subject in Social Science to be the qualifications for appointment with preference to be given to the persons, who have experience in extension work training under the family welfare programme and if all things are equal, the advertisement provided preference to the persons, who have served for 2 years in Territorial Army, or possess 'B' Certificate of National Cadet Corps. The candidates between the age of 21 to 35 were eligible with relaxations in the maximum age to the reserved category candidates. It is stated in paragraph -6 of the writ petition, that as many as 30,000 candidates including the petitioners applied for the advertised posts. Since the applicants were very large in number, the Commission decided to hold a screening test carrying 150 marks with a limited object to reduce the number of applicants. All the petitioners appeared in the screening test with the roll numbers given in brackets, after their names in the array of parties. The result of the screening test held on 7.5.2006, was declared on 12.8.2006. A total number of 4600 candidates including the petitioners were declared to have passed the screening test. The interviews were conducted between 4.9.2006 to 7.10.2006, in which all the 4600 candidates including the petitioners appeared before the interview board, constituted by the Commission. The result was declared 12.8.2006. The petitioners were not selected.
(3.) THE Commission published the answer key on its official website on which complaints were received regarding 14 questions out of 150. The Commission appointed an expert Committee to examine the allegations, and found that the five questions were void as they did not have correct answers in the options and that in case of 09 questions the answers in the answer key were wrong. The Commission corrected the error by canceling the five void questions out of 150 of the question of the booklet, and modified the answers of nine questions by correct answers. The Commission declared fresh results on the basis of rectified answer sheet on 5.2.2007 and cancelled the previous results declared on 12.8.2006. The revaluation shifted some candidates by increasing their marks to take place amongst the successful candidates. In case of some others the marks were decreased resulting in their disqualification.;