The Kerala High Court on Monday questioned the Kerala Public Service Commission over its reluctance to cooperate with an investigation into alleged examination irregularities, asking why the recruiting body was avoiding the probe if it had committed no wrongdoing. Emphasising that recruitment drives must remain fair and transparent, a bench of Justice A Badharudeen observed that competitive examinations carry the hopes of numerous educated young people across the state, making any allegations of manipulation exceptionally grave. The court made these oral remarks while hearing a petition filed by the commission challenging the state government’s decision to register a criminal case against its members and staff.
Unevaluated answer sheets trigger criminal investigation
The controversy stems from a written examination held in July 2023 for the post of Chief of the Industry and Infrastructure Division within the Kerala State Planning Board. The candidate who topped the rank list received an appointment advice in June 2025. However, during subsequent proceedings before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal initiated by another rank-holder, it emerged that answers to 10 questions in the written test had not been evaluated at all.
Taking note of the anomaly, the state government directed an inquiry and sanctioned the registration of a case against commission officials. The recruiting agency moved the High Court against the directive, seeking to halt the investigation. When the plea came up on Monday, the court remarked that leaving answers unevaluated defeats the entire purpose of holding a competitive exam and could amount to corruption, noting that the lapse might point toward a broader conspiracy.
State questions legal maintainability of commission plea
During the hearing, Director General of Prosecution T Asaf Ali strongly opposed the petition on behalf of the state government, arguing that a statutory recruitment body holds no legal right to file a writ petition against an investigation into its own functioning. The petition has already encountered procedural hurdles, having been initially rejected by the High Court registry on maintainability grounds. While a single bench originally upheld that registry objection, a division bench later directed a single judge to examine the question of maintainability afresh.
Justice Badharudeen noted that several key legal issues require determination, primarily whether the commission possesses the locus standi to maintain such a challenge in court. The bench pointed out that millions of aspirants dedicate years of hard work in the belief that the selection process is legitimate and uninfluenced, meaning every credible grievance warrants thorough scrutiny.
High Court adjourns further hearing to October 13
The court reiterated that its observations were preliminary exchanges during the hearing and did not amount to conclusive findings regarding the alleged wrongdoing. With counter-affidavits and official statements due to be placed on record, the bench adjourned the matter to October 13 for detailed consideration. The upcoming hearing will focus on whether the petition is legally maintainable, alongside the administrative failures surrounding the 10 unevaluated answers.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
