Proxy candidates: Bail denied to former test centre manager

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 29

A local court has denied bail to a former test centre manager of one of the reputed education services, Pearson VUE. The former manager was booked by the Chandigarh Police in October 2019 for allegedly arranging proxy candidates in the test centre located at Elante Mall in Phase 1, Industrial Area, here.

The Pearson Test of English Academic (PTE-A) is a computer-based test of English language made compulsory by various universities, colleges and governments around the world. The FIR was registered on the complaint of one of the representatives of Pearson VUE.

In the complaint, the representative alleged that the test centre manager in connivance with other accused duped the company by conducting proxy testing and attempted to defraud the immigration authorities by misusing the marks obtained by proxy candidates instead of original candidates.

The proxy candidates allegedly appeared in the test instead of original candidates.

The court was told that the alleged fraud was committed in a well-planned manner. The alleged beneficiaries and the proxy candidates wore same clothes. The original candidates entered the test centre located at Elante Mall. After sometime, they allegedly used to visit the washroom from where they leave and in return proxy candidates wearing the same clothes used to return to the test centre and appear for the exam.

The counsel for the accused sought bail on the ground that other accused also got bail in the case. On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the bail.

After hearing the arguments, Dr Ajit Atri, Additional Sessions Judge, said the accused persons were working in close connection and the petitioner was alleged to be the main facilitator for the proxy testing. The petitioner was the connecting link in the entire episode. In case he was granted bail, there was a possibility of his influencing the witnesses. The challan had been filed and the charges had been framed in the case by the trial court. There were serious allegations against the petitioner, which had put the authenticity of the entire system at stake. Consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail and the application was dismissed.