Crime Branch broadens probe to cover more posts

The Crime Branch has widened its investigation into Public Service Commission recruitment, identifying suspected irregularities in three more selection processes and preparing to name commission officials among the accused.

The Special Investigation Team, headed by Inspector General S Ajeetha Begum, has examined recruitment for Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Fisheries Extension Officer and Village Oil Inspector under the Khadi Board. The findings follow the investigation into disputed evaluation of examination papers for senior State Planning Board posts.

Crime Branch chief H Venkatesh has authorised further action, with separate criminal cases planned over the three recruitment exercises. Accounts of the procedural position differ, with one account indicating that cases have already been registered. The precise status of each first information report could not be independently established.

The investigation covers examinations and appointments conducted between 2019 and 2023. Investigators are examining whether irregularities arose from deliberate manipulation, failures in recruitment safeguards or improper assistance to particular candidates. Suspicions about leaks and financial dealings remain allegations requiring evidence.

The Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector examination has drawn attention because 47 of its 100 multiple-choice questions allegedly matched material in a single examination guide. Investigators are examining the origin of those questions and whether advance knowledge of the material conferred an unfair advantage on particular applicants.

The overlap alone does not establish that a confidential examination paper was leaked. Determining responsibility will require examination of how the questions were selected, who handled the paper and whether any candidate had privileged access before the test.

The Fisheries Extension Officer selection has raised separate questions about the concentration of successful candidates from the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, known as KUFOS. Of 110 candidates on the rank list, 93 were associated with the university. Of 42 people appointed, 38 came from KUFOS.

Investigators are also scrutinising the involvement of university faculty members in preparing questions and participating in interviews. The concern is whether safeguards against conflicts of interest were observed and whether any candidates received preferential treatment. University affiliation, by itself, is not proof of misconduct.

The Village Oil Inspector appointment is under examination because of an apparent discrepancy between prescribed training qualifications and a certificate submitted by the successful candidate. The recruitment required a science degree and specified training in the village oil industry, while the certificate cited in the inquiry covered a shorter course.

Investigators are checking whether that qualification satisfied the notification and how the candidate’s eligibility was assessed. The appointee has also been described as having a family connection to a PSC official, a circumstance that investigators must assess separately from the documentary eligibility issue.

The three inquiries substantially extend the scope of scrutiny beyond the Planning Board examination, where the commission acknowledged errors in evaluating answer scripts. Ten questions carrying 58 marks had been left unevaluated, affecting the assessment of candidates competing for senior posts.

That controversy emerged after candidate Shyam Krishnan obtained his answer script and challenged the evaluation. Following reassessment and interviews, the PSC published a revised rank list in October placing him first, while Arun J Prathap, previously ranked first and appointed, fell to fifth position.

The Planning Board dispute has also generated litigation over the Crime Branch investigation. The PSC challenged the prosecution sanction and criminal proceedings, raising questions about the government’s authority to sanction action against commission personnel. Those legal proceedings are distinct from determining criminal responsibility for individual recruitment decisions.