'PSC turned into family property': High Court slams recruitment practices

KOCHI: The Kerala Public Service Commission's (PSC) recruitment practices had rendered the hard work of job aspirants futile, the High Court observed. Director General of Prosecution T. Asaf Ali alleged that certain individuals had turned the PSC into their family property. The observations came during arguments in a petition filed by the PSC seeking to quash the Crime Branch investigation into the appointment to the post of Chief of the State Planning Board.

The initial recruitment proceedings were under a cloud of suspicion, with allegations that candidates linked to a prominent political party had been given preference. The approach had left the younger generation deeply disillusioned, the court observed. "Whom should they trust?" Justice A. Badharudeen asked. The court also questioned why the PSC was apprehensive about a Crime Branch investigation if there had been no irregularities. It said the commission could establish its position through the investigation and pointed out that none of its members had been named as an accused in the case so far. After hearing the arguments, the court reserved its verdict.

Director General of Prosecution T. Asaf Ali submitted that a novel form of fraud had been carried out, including by excluding certain questions from the evaluation process. As many as 180 complaints had been received, leading to the registration of three cases. Two senior officials had been arrested. He also pointed out that the PSC had taken 300 days to respond to Right to Information (RTI) applications submitted by other candidates. If its hands were clean, why should the commission be anxious, he asked.

PSC's arguments fail to convince court

The PSC argued that its governing body enjoyed special protection and that only the President had the authority to remove its members. Therefore, the government's decision to order an investigation without prior approval was illegal. The commission admitted that it had made a mistake in the recruitment process for the Planning Board post but maintained that it had corrected it. The failure to evaluate certain questions was not deliberate, it contended. The delay in responding to the RTI applications was attributed to the proceedings before the Administrative Tribunal.

However, the court said it was not entirely convinced by these arguments. It questioned whether the delay in providing RTI information was intended to prevent irregularities from coming to light. The legal question raised by the petitioners was whether an FIR registered without prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act could be sustained. The court reserved its verdict, stating that it would clarify the legal position on the issue.