Kerala HC reserves order on KPSC challenge to prosecution sanction over Planning Board exam ‘irregularities’

The Kerala High Court has reserved orders on the Kerala Public Service Commission’s (KPSC) petition challenging the prosecution sanction granted in connection with the alleged irregularities in the Planning Board examination.

Justice A. Badharudeen orally remarked that the alleged irregularities in the appointment were disheartening to hardworking candidates. The KPSC had approached the court seeking to quash the sanction granted by the government to prosecute the commission’s employees and the FIR registered in connection with the alleged irregularities at the Crime Branch Police Station.

The commission argued that the State did not possess the authority to appoint or remove its members and that this power was vested in the President of India. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction to prosecute a public official was vested in the authority competent to remove them from the post. It argued that the government erred in ordering an investigation into the alleged irregularities without obtaining prior approval from the authority concerned.

The Director General of Prosecution T. Asaf Ali stated that the State received more than 180 complaints against the commission, out of which three had resulted in registration of police cases. The State alleged that the commission had taken 300 days to respond to an application filed by other candidates under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The commission replied that this delay was due to a connected case pending before the Administrative Tribunal. In this regard, the court orally enquired whether the delay in replying to the RTI applications was to prevent the alleged malpractices from surfacing.

The evaluation process of an examination conducted to appoint the Chief (Industry and Infrastructure Division) in the Kerala State Planning Board had given rise to the allegations. Questions 9 to 14 under “Economics” were not allotted to the appropriate evaluators, which resulted in their non-assessment. The commission claimed that the error was a “computer snag” and stated that it had taken measures to rectify the identified errors.