Punjab PCS Mains results trigger row as students allege evaluation irregularities, demand independent probe
According to the candidates, 10 to 11 shortlisted applicants were from the same examination room, while 24.21 per cent of candidates from one exam centre made it to the shortlist.
PTC News Desk: The results of the Punjab Civil Services (PCS) Mains examination, conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC), have come under controversy. The results were announced late on Wednesday, November 4, after which candidates alleged serious irregularities and malpractice.
According to the candidates, 10 to 11 shortlisted applicants were from the same examination room, while 24.21 per cent of candidates from one exam centre made it to the shortlist. They alleged that rules and transparency were ignored while evaluating answer sheets. They also claimed that the Commission did not shortlist three times the number of candidates as the advertised vacancies for interviews.
Students further alleged that the result included roll numbers of some candidates who were absent from the examination. They have submitted memorandums to the President, Prime Minister, Punjab Chief Minister and CBI, seeking an independent probe. They are also preparing to approach the High Court if no satisfactory action is taken. Students have begun gathering in the Chandigarh High Court parking area.
Opposition flags concerns
The BJP called the matter similar to the NEET paper leak controversy. Former Punjab BJP president Sunil Jakhar demanded a CBI investigation, asking how so many candidates from selected rooms could have been shortlisted.
SAD president Sukhbir Singh Badal slammed AAP-led Punjab government over the alleged exam irregularities in PCS Mains 2026 and demanded an independent investigation into the matter. He also said that original answer sheets and digital records must be rigorously scrutinised.
Five questions raised by students over the PCS result
More than 40% shortlisted from some rooms: Students said 10 candidates each were shortlisted from one room at four different examination centres. At Centre 7, Room 8, 11 of 24 candidates were shortlisted (45.8%). At Centre 11, Room 14, 10 of 24 were shortlisted (41.7%). At Centre 4, Room 19, 10 of 24 were shortlisted (41.7%). They said such a high number of selections from the same room could not be dismissed as a coincidence.
Large differences in shortlisting rates: Candidates pointed to major differences between centres. They said the overall shortlisting rate at Centre 8 was 24.21 per cent, while the rate for Rooms 1 to 7 at Centre 1 was only 2.89 per cent. It then rose sharply to 13.77 per cent for Rooms 8 to 18.
Consecutive roll numbers shortlisted: Candidates said the result included several shortlisted applicants with consecutive roll numbers. They alleged that roll numbers are assigned according to the seating plan, and argued that the selection of candidates seated in the same row or sequence raises questions about fairness.
Alleged breach of the three-times interview rule: According to recruitment rules, three times the number of advertised vacancies should be called for interviews. Candidates claimed that the shortlist was well below this ratio and that the Commission had not provided an official explanation. For 331 posts, 751 candidates have been called for interviews.
Answer sheets allegedly checked by students: Candidates alleged that university students, rather than qualified professors or experienced subject experts, evaluated the answer sheets. They also claimed that some people already knew how many answer sheets they would be assigned to check. Students further questioned why all examination centres were located in Patiala.