Welcome to Online English Section with explanation in Affairs Cloud.com. Here we are creating question sample in Cloze test, which is BASED ON IBPS & SBI PO/CLERK/LIC AAO/RRB, RBI, IPPB,SSC CGL EXAM and other competitive exams !!!
It is arguably the logical consequence of the 2014 Supreme Court order (1) all coal block allocations made since 1993 illegal and arbitrary. The conviction of three Coal Ministry officials, including former Secretary H.C. Gupta, marks the first case in which individual criminal liability has been fixed on public servants in the coal block scam. Two previous trials had ended in (2) , but those held guilty were officials of private companies who had deceived the authorities into allotting them blocks. Mr. Gupta was the chairperson of the screening committee that recommended allocations. It functioned for years without regard for guidelines, norms or (3) , until the apex court (4) its irregular run. He and two other public servants have been found guilty of abusing their positions to (5) a coal block for Kamal Sponge Steel and Power Limited. While it was fairly clear that the screening committee route was only a mechanism to push through the applications of all and sundry for coal blocks, especially under the first UPA government, it was not certain if it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that public servants had manipulated the system to their (6) . Special CBI Court Judge Bharat Parashar has now ruled that Coal Ministry officials deliberately allowed an incomplete application from an ineligible company to be taken up for consideration. Far from ‘screening’ applications, he finds that the accused actually let all applications pass without any checking so that “they will have an open field to (7) exercise their discretion in favour of any company”.
The verdict is a studied (8) of government processes, or the lack of processes, during the period. Looking at the prosecution charges and the defence claims, it appears there was little clarity on whether the guidelines were being (9) to. The former Secretary and Joint Secretary said in their defence they could not verify applications for completeness and eligibility, as it was the job of the section concerned. The section says this is the job of the administrative ministry or the State government to which applications are forwarded. Other (10) include the failure to evolve any inter se criteria to decide eligibility, or to do any verification either before or after the screening committee recommended allocations to the Minister.
- 1) retracting
5) reversingAnswer – 2)
Explanation: declaring – say something in a solemn and emphatic manner.
- 1) turnabouts
5) turnaroundAnswer – 3)
Explanation: convictions – a formal declaration by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law that someone is guilty of a criminal offence.
- 1) occupy
5) bereaveAnswer – 4)
Explanation: transparency – the condition of being transparent.
- 1) halted
5) depletedAnswer – 1)
Explanation: halted – bring or come to an abrupt stop.
- 1) annex
4) chalk up
5) retainAnswer – 2)
Explanation: procure – the action of obtaining or procuring something.
- 1) forfeit
5) drawbackAnswer – 3)
Explanation: advantage – a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favourable or superior position.
- 1) capitulate
5) arbitrarilyAnswer – 5)
Explanation: arbitrarily – on the basis of random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
- 1) indictment
5) progressivelyAnswer – 1)
Explanation: indictment – a formal charge or accusation of a serious crime.
- 1) steadily
5) remembranceAnswer – 3)
Explanation: adhered – stick fast to (a surface or substance).
- 1) divests
5) additionsAnswer – 4)
Explanation: omissions – someone or something that has been left out or excluded.