Kerala HC slams PSC for not co-operating with the investigation into the Planning Board Exam irregularities

The investigation concerns alleged irregularities in the evaluation of an examination for appointing the Chief of the Industry and Infrastructure Division in the Kerala State Planning Board. The Kerala High Court said the allegations were serious because questions worth 58 marks were not evaluated. It also orally suggested that a larger conspiracy might be involved.

The Kerala Public Service Commission said questions numbered 9 to 18 were not sent to examiners for any of the 228 candidates. It described the problem as a computer snag. The Commission also said Economics questions were not assigned to the appropriate evaluators, which caused them to remain unevaluated.

The Commission stated that it took steps to correct errors in the evaluation process and rank list. The Crime Branch registered an FIR and is investigating the alleged irregularities. The High Court is examining the dispute while considering the Commission’s request to cancel the government’s prosecution sanction and the FIR.

The High Court questioned the Commission’s cooperation because the Commission itself claimed that the evaluation problem had a technical explanation. If that was its position, the court wanted to know why it had not provided a statement to the Crime Branch, which was investigating the alleged irregularities. This raised concerns about the Commission’s conduct during the investigation.

The Commission had instead filed a writ petition. It sought to quash the government’s sanction to prosecute its employees and the FIR registered by the Crime Branch. The court was considering whether that petition was maintainable, meaning whether it could properly be heard in that form.

The court also viewed the allegations as especially serious because 58 marks were not evaluated. Justice A. Badharudeen said the hopes of young people should be protected. The court stressed that recruitment through the Commission must be free from influence or manipulation, making cooperation important for public confidence and a fair investigation.

The Kerala Public Service Commission is an autonomous constitutional body that conducts recruitment examinations and helps select people for government service. Its role is to administer recruitment fairly, including arranging examinations, sending answer materials to evaluators, evaluating responses, and preparing rank lists. The source specifically identifies the Commission as responsible for the examination connected to the Planning Board appointment.

Here, the examination was held to appoint the Chief of the Industry and Infrastructure Division in the Kerala State Planning Board. The Commission said questions 9 to 18 were not forwarded to examiners for any of the 228 candidates. It also said Economics questions were assigned incorrectly, leaving them unevaluated.

The Commission maintained that its members were unconnected with the affairs of the State and that the body was not under the State government’s control. Even so, its recruitment work is being investigated by the Crime Branch, while the High Court is examining its legal challenge. The case highlights the need for accurate and transparent recruitment procedures.

The alleged failure affected every candidate who took the examination. The Commission told the court that questions numbered 9 to 18 were not forwarded to examiners for any of the 228 candidates. This means the problem was not limited to one candidate or a small group.

The High Court stated that questions worth 58 marks were not evaluated. The Commission explained that Economics questions had not been assigned to the appropriate evaluators. It described the issue as a computer snag, while the court said that failing to evaluate 58 marks was, by itself, a violation of the law.

Because the same questions were reportedly omitted for all 228 candidates, the evaluation and rank list could be affected across the entire field. The Commission said it had taken measures to correct identified errors. The Crime Branch is investigating, and the High Court is considering the Commission’s challenge to the prosecution sanction and FIR.

Non-evaluation of 58 marks can make the examination results inaccurate. Candidates may receive scores that do not reflect their answers, and their relative positions may change when the missing marks are properly assessed. Since recruitment depends on comparative performance, an incorrect score can affect ranking and the fairness of the selection process.

The article gives a concrete example of the problem. Questions 9 to 18 were reportedly not sent to examiners for any of the 228 candidates. The Commission said Economics questions were assigned to the wrong evaluators. It also said it had taken measures to rectify errors in the evaluation process and rank list.

The article does not state the final effect on individual candidates or appointments. However, correcting the evaluation could require changes to the rank list and could alter the appointment process. The High Court called the failure to evaluate 58 marks a violation of law and stressed that recruitment must be free from manipulation.

The Kerala High Court is examining the case and the maintainability of the Commission’s writ petition. Justice A. Badharudeen questioned the Commission’s conduct and commented on the seriousness of leaving 58 marks unevaluated. The court also stressed that recruitment should not be influenced or manipulated.

The Crime Branch is the investigating agency. It registered the FIR concerning the alleged irregularities and sought information about what happened. The State government gave sanction to prosecute Commission employees. The Public Service Commission, meanwhile, conducted the examination, handled the evaluation and rank list, and said it took corrective measures.

The Commission challenged the government’s prosecution sanction and the Crime Branch FIR. It argued that the issue was a computer snag and maintained that it was an autonomous constitutional body, not controlled by the State government. The court’s next role is to decide whether the petition can be maintained and to scrutinise the issues raised by the investigation.

An autonomous constitutional body has a legally protected institutional position and is not directed in its routine work by the State government. The Commission relied on this status when it said its members were unconnected with the affairs of the State and that the body was not under government control. Autonomy is intended to support impartial public recruitment.

In this case, autonomy did not prevent scrutiny of the Commission’s actions. The Crime Branch registered an FIR over alleged irregularities, and the State government sanctioned prosecution of employees. The Commission responded by filing a writ petition seeking to quash both the sanction and the FIR.

The High Court can still examine whether alleged conduct violated the law and whether the Commission’s petition is maintainable. It can question the body’s explanations and its cooperation with investigators. The court’s concern was that recruitment remain free from influence or manipulation. Constitutional autonomy therefore supports independence, but it does not create immunity from lawful investigation or judicial oversight.