CGPSC Clarifies Eligibility Issue: Identity Mark Mentioned on Answer Sheet
TFP Bureau, Raipur, Oct 8, 2023: Recent social media reports suggesting that the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) overlooked a qualified candidate during the selection process have been addressed by the Commission. The controversy emerged when Mr. Shivam Dewangan, a candidate from the Other Backward Class (OBC) community, formally lodged a complaint with the CGPSC Secretary and Controller of Examinations. Mr. Dewangan claimed that despite achieving an impressive score of 771.5 in the CGPSC-2022 written examination, he was not invited for an interview. Allegations arose that candidates with lower scores, ranging from 710 to 715 in the OBC category, were granted interview opportunities, raising concerns about fairness and transparency in the selection process.
In response to the circulating news, the CGPSC issued a statement firmly denying its accuracy and factual basis. The Commission clarified that, in the State Service Examination 2022, Mr. Shivam Dewangan had been declared ineligible due to the presence of an identity mark alongside “Shri Radheshyam and Rajesh Mohan” in question number 17(b) on page 20 of the question-cum-answer booklet of the first question paper. Consequently, Mr. Dewangan was excluded from the examination result process and was not included in the interview list for the State Service (Main) Examination 2022.
It is crucial to highlight that the advertisement released by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, as outlined in paragraph 11 of the advertisement and paragraph 04 of the instructions in the question-cum-answer booklet, explicitly directed candidates not to include their name, roll number, religious symbols, identification marks, or any non-answer-related content in their responses. The guidelines also specified the exclusive use of blue and black ballpoint pens, strictly prohibiting the use of other pen types such as sketch pens, highlighters, or glitter pens on the answer sheet. Violation of these instructions could result in the scrutineer recommending the disqualification of the candidate. The Commission emphasized that its determinations in such matters would be final. Mr. Shivam Kumar Dewangan was declared ineligible for not adhering to the specified instructions.
