According to the CBI, a coaching institute operator facilitated targeted preparation for selected candidates at a hotel in Barnawapara, Mahasamund district, days before the CGPSC mains exam. Investigators claim the operator received the question papers in advance and trained candidates accordingly. This preparatory coaching reportedly ensured that relatives of influential bureaucrats and business families secured top ranks.
Twelve of the accused are currently in jail, including former CGPSC Chairman Taman Singh Sonwani, former Exam Controller Aarti Wasnik, industrialist Shravan Goyal and his family members, while one accused, Utkarsh Chandrakar, remains absconding.
The CBI’s probe revealed that in the top-20 selected candidates, 13 were relatives of officials, political leaders, or influential businessmen. Former exam controller Aarti Wasnik is accused of directly leaking the question papers and facilitating their duplication. The papers were initially printed by a Kolkata-based company and brought to Raipur by an employee, Mahesh Das, in January 2021. The leaked papers were handed over to key conspirators, copied, and then resealed for official use.
The chargesheet details that Shravan Goyal’s son Shashank and daughter-in-law Bhumi Katiyar received the leaked papers and were subsequently appointed as Deputy Collectors. The CBI claims that the manipulation extended from the pre-exam stage to interviews, bypassing merit-based selection and disadvantaging eligible candidates.
This scam pertains to the recruitment of 171 posts through the CGPSC 2021 examinations conducted between February and May 2022. The preliminary exam on February 13, 2022, saw 2,565 candidates pass, while the mains exam conducted in May 2022 resulted in 509 passing. Following the interview process, the final selection list was released on May 11, 2023.
The CBI has indicated that the trial will commence soon, with the chargesheet providing detailed evidence of collusion among CGPSC officials, coaching operators, and influential candidates. This case underscores persistent concerns regarding transparency in state civil service examinations and the misuse of official positions for personal gain.
8.jpg)
