Karnataka HC Orders Court-Monitored Probe into KPSC Irregularities; SIT Headed by DGP Alok Kumar

The Karnataka High Court on Monday ordered a court-monitored investigation into alleged large-scale irregularities in the recruitment processes of the Karnataka State Public Service Commission (KPSC). The court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by senior IPS officer and Director-General of Police Alok Kumar to conduct the probe. The KPSC is a constitutional body responsible for recruiting candidates for various state government posts in Karnataka.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order on petitions filed by MLA Basanagouda R. Patil Yatnal, the All Karnataka State Students’ Association, and Manjunath. The petitioners had sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into two specific cases: the selection of the daughter of suspended KPSC chairperson Shivashankar S. Sahukar to the post of Industrial Extension Officer, and alleged illegalities in the selection of candidates to 400 posts of veterinary officers.

The court has given the SIT 100 days to complete the investigation and submit a final report. It must also submit an investigation progress report every 30 days. The court observed that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases, it was not appropriate to permit the investigation to continue either with the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) or the jurisdictional police. However, it was equally not convinced that entrusting the probe to the CBI was the only available course. The court said it was not convinced that the CBI was the only option, nor that the CID or local police could handle it appropriately.

Besides Alok Kumar, the court named IPS officers Divya V. Gopinath, Anoop A. Shetty, Kushal Choksey, and Kshama Mishra as members of the SIT. The State government has been directed to issue a notification declaring the SIT as a police station for the purposes of investigation.

The court said the SIT shall conduct the investigation independently, impartially, and without being influenced by any observation made in the order on the merits of the allegations. It made clear that the investigation shall not be confined by the persons presently named, the allegations presently made, or the contours presently perceived. 'If the evidence gathered during investigation reveals involvement of any other person, offence, transaction or act, having a nexus with the subject matter of investigation, the SIT shall follow the evidence wherever it leads, strictly in accordance with law,' the court stated.

The SIT has been given liberty to use the services of forensic, cyber, financial, technical, or other specialised assistance for an effective investigation. It should also extend cooperation to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has taken up a probe under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and receive information from the ED.

Tracing the 'troubled history' of KPSC recruitments since 1998, the court noted that history reveals allegations recurring with disquieting similarity—such as nepotism, favouritism, fraud, corruption, tampering of OMR sheets, and even allegations of answers being written for candidates elsewhere while the examination was underway. The court's observations highlight the systemic issues plaguing the KPSC over the years.

'History, it is said, should teach institutions. It cannot be permitted merely to repeat itself, recruitment after recruitment, at the cost of thousands of aspirants whose only capital is merit and whose only expectation is fairness,' the court observed.

Pointing out that thousands of young men and women spend the most productive years of their lives preparing for these examinations believing that merit will ultimately have its day, the court said that when a post is sold, an OMR sheet is tampered with, marks are manipulated, or a selection is engineered, 'merit is not merely defeated; it is betrayed.'

Such betrayal, the court said, 'breeds cynicism among the young and creates the dangerous perception that constitutional avenues themselves are available for purchase. A recruitment scam in a Public Service Commission in particular is not merely a theft of post; it is a theft of equality of opportunity.'

The court's order underscores the need for an independent and thorough investigation to restore faith in the recruitment process and uphold the principle of equal opportunity for all aspirants. The court's decision comes amid growing concerns about transparency in public recruitment processes.