Justice A. Badharudeen made the oral observation while considering a petition filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) challenging the Crime Branch investigation. The court also directed that V. S. Jayalal, a candidate who had challenged the evaluation process before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, be included as a party to the High Court proceedings.
The judge considered Jayalal’s participation necessary to address his grievances concerning the revaluation of examination papers. His inclusion brings a candidate directly affected by the disputed marking process into proceedings that have principally involved the commission and the state government.
The court questioned the effectiveness of an investigation in which those regarded as central to the allegations had not been examined. The observations were made orally during the hearing and should not be treated as a judicial finding that any individual committed an offence.
The government maintained that the investigation was continuing but accused the PSC of failing to cooperate with investigators. The commission disputed that account and argued that the inquiry had not followed the applicable legal procedures. It has sought to have the criminal case and the government action underlying the investigation set aside.
The court also expressed concern that apparent closeness between the government and the commission could undermine public confidence in the investigation. The competing positions have brought the conduct of the investigating agency and the response of the recruitment authority under judicial scrutiny.
The Crime Branch is investigating allegations arising from an examination held in July 2023 for senior positions in the State Planning Board. The controversy centres on answers to 10 questions, together carrying 58 marks, which were omitted from the original assessment of a paper attempted by candidates.
Investigators have said the omissions affected the evaluation of scripts submitted by 228 candidates. Their inquiry is examining whether the omissions resulted from a technical or administrative mistake or were deliberate actions intended to influence recruitment outcomes.
The PSC has maintained that the problem arose from a clerical or computer-related error rather than intentional manipulation. Its representatives have argued that corrective measures were undertaken after the discrepancy came to light and that the commission’s conduct does not establish a criminal offence.
The Crime Branch, however, has placed material before the court alleging serious procedural violations in the assessment. Its position is that the circumstances require a criminal investigation rather than being dealt with exclusively through internal corrections and departmental proceedings.
The commission had initially published a selection list based on the disputed valuation. Candidates subsequently sought access to their answer scripts, leading to challenges over the exclusion of questions from marking and the consequences for the rankings.
A revised selection process has already produced substantial changes. Shyam Krishnan, previously placed third for the post of Chief of the Industry and Infrastructure Division, moved to first position after revaluation and interviews. Arun J. Prathap, who had topped the original list and taken up the appointment, fell to fifth.
The changed rankings illustrate the practical importance of the disputed questions, although the revaluation does not itself determine whether criminal wrongdoing occurred. The legality of the investigation and the responsibility for the initial omissions remain separate matters before the authorities.
At an earlier hearing, the High Court asked PSC representatives why commission members had not responded to investigators seeking information and documents.
(The article ‘Court flays govt, police for tardy PSC probe’ appeared first on Free Press Journal.)
The article Court flays govt, police for tardy PSC probe appeared first on Arabian Post.
