In order to avail of the Other Backward Classes (OBC) non-creamy layer quota in the UPSC, Puja Khedkar had reportedly claimed that her parents were separated and she was living with her mother. Image courtesy: dr_pujamdk_ias/Instagram
On August 1, 2024, former IAS trainee Puja Khedkar faced a significant legal blow as the Patiala House Court denied her request for anticipatory bail. This decision comes after the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) canceled her provisional candidature and permanently barred her from future exams due to allegations of falsifying information in her application.
Khedkar, who had applied for the UPSC Civil Services Examination in 2022, is accused of providing false details regarding her eligibility. The court's decision to reject her bail comes just one day after the UPSC took action against her, stating that she violated the rules of the examination. The court has instructed the Delhi Police to investigate if Khedkar received undue advantages and whether anyone within the UPSC might have helped her.
Judge Devender Kumar Jangala ordered a broad investigation to determine if other candidates had also improperly benefited from quotas meant for Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Persons with Disabilities (PwD). This probe aims to uncover if similar violations occurred and to ensure that the examination process remains fair for all candidates.
During the court hearing, Khedkar's lawyer, Bina Madhavan, argued that Khedkar had unintentionally provided incorrect information and claimed that the legal action against her was a form of retaliation. Madhavan mentioned that Khedkar had previously complained of harassment by a government official, which could have influenced the current situation. Additionally, Khedkar's disability certificate, issued by AIIMS, was presented as proof of her eligibility.
On the other hand, SPP Atul Srivastava, representing the state, argued that UPSC was deceived and highlighted that the investigation is still ongoing. Senior Advocate Naresh Kaushik, who represented UPSC, pointed out that Khedkar’s failure to disclose her previous exam attempts was a serious breach of the examination rules.
The controversy began when Khedkar, recently assigned to the Pune Collectorate for probationary training, made demands for privileges not typically granted to trainee officers. This led to further scrutiny of her background and the validity of her eligibility for certain quotas. Additional issues arose when it was revealed that her father owned significant property, raising questions about her OBC status. Khedkar also failed to complete a required health check-up to confirm her disability status.
The case is ongoing, with authorities working to resolve the issues and ensure that the examination process is fair and transparent for future candidates.
Comments
Post a Comment