Interview Transcripts 2023

This reflected the overall attitude of the Director and the Deputy Director towards her case. It revealed a troubling mindset — one that viewed a woman’s legal challenge and her need to be near her child not as a matter requiring compassionate consideration, but as something that should have been avoided. What should have been support turned into discouragement and further hurdles. It was sheer harassment in the form of rigid policies, denial of entry, and warnings against seeking legal recourse. The whole incident shows how far some people are willing to go simply because their ego is bigger than the welfare and equality guaranteed under the Constitution. This experience laid bare a painful truth: while society has moved forward, the mindset at responsible positions in some institutions has not. What should have been a welfare measure was weaponised. What should have been support for a medically fit officer and mother became exclusionary. The financial drain, the emotional toll on a young family, the professional discouragement for approaching the judiciary, and the multi-year delay in training — all of it showed how the system can work against a woman who refuses to be silenced. Even the Supreme Court, while disposing of her Special Leave Petition in July 2026 without granting immediate relief (primarily because a significant portion of the training had already progressed and the 95% attendance rule made partial joining impractical), acknowledged on merits that the 1993 OM is a beneficial welfare provision which should not be used to deny training to medically fit officers. The Court emphasised case-by-case assessment over blanket application and directed the CAT to decide the matter independently on merits, while protecting her seniority. The highest court saw the unreasonableness in the rigid approach. Yet on the ground, the resistance and the personal cost told a different story. Urvashi Sengar’s ordeal is not an isolated incident. It is a stark illustration of the difficulties faced by women in uniformed and civil services when they assert their rights, especially around maternity. Policies designed for protection become tools of exclusion when implemented without empathy or foresight. Legal avenues become sources of further obstacles when those in power discourage or penalise women for using them. The resulting career delays push back not just months, but years of service. Her story is one of quiet courage. She has continued preparing her submissions for the CAT, drawing strength from the Supreme Court’s observations on merits. She has shown that she is fit, capable, and ready to serve. But the price she has paid — in savings, in family stability, in emotional strain, and in facing discouragement for simply approaching the Tribunal — should never have been demanded of any officer, let alone a woman navigating early motherhood. The system must evolve. Training policies need urgent reform to become genuinely gender-sensitive, drawing from precedents in the IAS and aligning with constitutional values of equality and maternity rights. Women officers deserve support structures, not barriers. They deserve assessment based on merit, not warnings for seeking justice. And above all, they deserve that the mindset at positions of responsibility catches up with the times — so that no woman has to choose between her child and her career, or face exclusion for refusing to surrender either. Urvashi’s fight continues. It is a fight not just for herself, but for every woman who enters these services hoping to serve the nation without being broken by the very system she seeks to strengthen. Her resilience stands as proof that while policies and attitudes may try to hold women back, the spirit that refuses to accept injustice will keep pushing for change — until the system finally works for women, not against them.

Dear friends, Another story of determination and grit - though the youngster is in IPS now, earlier she was an IDAS probationer - to question something which should not have a space in today’s times. ======================== Urvashi Sengar, a dedicated probationer of the 76 RR batch (2023), allotted to Madhya Pradesh Cadre of the Indian Police Service, began her career with the same ideals that inspire many women to join the civil services — to serve the nation with integrity, courage, and commitment. What she encountered instead was a system that tested not just her professional capabilities, but her resilience as a woman, a mother, and an officer who dared to seek fairness. During her District Practical Training, she became pregnant. She was originally supposed to undergo Phase-II training from May to July 2025. In May 2025, when she informed the authorities, the response was swift and mechanical. Her training was discontinued under the rigid application of a 1993 Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum. She was told to rejoin Phase-II training only one year after delivery. She even requested time to meet the Director initially, but this was denied, leaving her with no option but to escalate the matter by approaching the Ministry of Home Affairs. No consideration was given to her medical fitness, her willingness to continue, or the possibility of supportive arrangements. A welfare provision meant to protect women was turned into a barrier that threatened her confirmation, seniority, and first posting. The training that could have been completed in just two months in 2025 has now been pushed to 2027, causing a significant career delay. Urvashi did not accept this quietly. She submitted detailed representations to the Ministry of Home Affairs. She met the Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary (Police). Even the Madhya Pradesh Cadre supported her by formally requesting the National Police Academy to allow her to undergo training. These efforts showed that her case had merit and backing at multiple levels. Yet the doors remained closed at the Academy. Initially, she thought the Academy would allow her to train with the 77 RR 2026 batch. But even to her surprise, she was denied entry citing the one-year-after-delivery rule — even though in the past the Academy had allowed women to undergo training with the next available batch. She took the legal route and approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal’s interim order in May 2026 permitted her to join Phase-II of the 77 RR batch starting 22 June 2026. For the first time, there was a glimmer of hope that justice might prevail. This inconsistency in past practices versus the current rigid application was also noted by the Honourable Supreme Court. To make it possible for her infant child to stay close to the mother during this critical period, Urvashi shifted her entire family to Hyderabad. She spent every rupee of her savings on flight tickets, renting a room, and even buying furniture to create a temporary home. It was a sacrifice made with the belief that the system would honour the Tribunal’s order and allow a capable officer to balance duty and motherhood. She was supposed to join by 10 pm on 21 June. On the 18th of June, that belief was shattered. The permission letter was withdrawn without filing any appeal in the High Court, citing that the case was subjudice. Despite the CAT order, she was not allowed inside the Academy even for the 22 June 2026 course, with the denial citing the same old policy. Special instructions had been issued to the guards not to permit her entry. After uprooting her family and exhausting her savings, she stood outside, denied the opportunity she had fought for through every legitimate channel. The Academy later filed an appeal on 20 June and obtained a stay on 22 June in the High Court. When she tried to reach out to the Director of the Academy through senior officers, she was informed by two officers that she should not have gone to the CAT.

https://www.deshbandhu.co.in/featured-news/supreme-court-questions-pregnancy-rule-for-ips-training-308810

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/supreme-court-questions-one-year-post-childbirth-ips-training-ban-seeks-centre-s-response-if-she-is-fit-enough-13969304.html

This is the real Interview Transcripts group. All others are sadly cheap copies. Be aware of their posts. Thank you 🙏🏻

Verified ✅

Shri Kishan Yadav cse 23 roll no 6312023 IDAS pls contact @phukman

CSPT Interview Transcript compilations of last two years.

WR-CSM-24-RollList-Engl-091224 (1).pdf Verified ✅✅

https://www.facebook.com/61560323341375/posts/pfbid0ERtCpUbmC4PstHbNd1dqtes7RNh9YWL8omsCFsYikDqTZCyf6TztGLQvX1PYfmtLl/

Congratulations kaps ❤️❤️😁

IPS - 76 RR - Passing out Parade (POP) is tomorrow. You can watch POP live here. https://m.youtube.com/live/J3ChsmClDSE?si=WYot1n1IZX_AhXtZ

Service allocation CSE 23

Verified ✅

https://www.coalindia.in/departments/csr/nirman-noble-initiative-rewarding-mains-aspirants-national-civil-service-examination/ #Sharing_is_Caring 😊👆🙏

Disclaimer: Le Lord UPSC to coaching institutes: तुम लोग मेरे 100 प्रश्नों का सही उत्तरकुंजी तो एक साल में ठीक से तैयार नहीं कर पाते और चले मेरे जैसा टेस्ट पेपर बनाने। अगर किसी कोचिंग की उत्तरकुंजी यूपीएससी उत्तरकुंजी के समान पाई जाती है तो इसें केवल और केवल मात्र एक संयोग ही माना जाएगा।

In order to avoid radically different answer key by UPSC, it's better that on controversial/well debated questions people put representation for most agreed anwers also. A trend has been observed whereby UPSC accepting "minority view answers" while changing original and "majority view answers". So better if people represent on both sides, making the Objections Based Alteration system of UPSC more rational and Balanced. In nutshell, if people are representing answer A of some question, and 60-70% coachings after much deliberation arrives at conclusion that answer A is correct but few coachings answer key and a good number of aspirants saying answer can be B also based on some random NCERT screenshot or SC judgement etc. and they are filing frequent representation for Answer B. Then it's better that Answer A people also file similar representation so that UPSC don't change answer based on multiple representation received on answer B thinking that it's Rational Approach ! For better understanding deeper ramifications of this, kindly see above data analyses of Previous Answer Keys. After Representation System has been initiated, UPSC Answer Keys has started showing high variations on Coaching Answer Keys as compared to previous years when no such system was there. Especially on few questions which everyone assumes correct but later on UPSC saying otherwise unexpectedly on those questions. All thanks to imbalanced representations on such questions. #janhit_mein_jaari 😁😎 #Sharing_is_Caring 😊😎🤟 PS - All views are strictly personal and suggestive. Mere SPECULATION !