The Kerala High Court asks why key person not questioned in the Crime Branch probe into a PSC exam, where the Commission speaks of a clerical slip and the State of an innovative fraud. The allegations are untested, and the matter returns on October 27.
Kochi: On the Kerala Public Service Commission’s plea to quash the Crime Branch probe into its recruitment exam for a senior State Planning Board post, the Kerala High Court asked the State how the investigation can move ahead without questioning the key person in the selection process [Kerala Public Service Commission and Another v. State of Kerala and Another].
Justice A. Badharudeen took up WP(Crl.) No. 1497 of 2026 on October 24, 2026, and it is listed again for October 27, 2026. The allegations under investigation are untested, and the material available names no one as an accused. The Court has expressed no view on the merits, and everyone concerned is presumed innocent.
What the Bench has asked
On October 24, Justice Badharudeen wanted to know how far the investigation had progressed. If the Commission and the government were “Bhai bhai”, he remarked orally, people would have reason to suspect the process. These were oral observations made during the hearing and not findings, and the Court has not recorded any view on whether an offence was committed.
On an earlier date, October 5, 2026, the Court asked orally why the Commission’s members were not cooperating with the investigation, observing that they were being called as persons with knowledge of the facts and not as accused. It also questioned whether a statutory body could file a writ petition at all, and told the Commission it is not remediless, since a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita could be available.
Orally, the Court agreed with the State that the government order was a general direction for an inquiry that named no one, and not a sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The State was given time to file its counter affidavit.
Two versions of one exam
The Commission describes the irregularities as a clerical error and not a deliberate attempt to manipulate the selection, and says the probe was not authorised under the applicable rules. It wants a declaration that its members and staff are not employed in connection with the affairs of the State, which would mean the State cannot sanction their prosecution. At the earlier hearing, its Senior Counsel S. Sreekumar argued that what occurred was a clerical error and a computer snag, not a crime.
The State’s position is that its investigation is continuing, that the Commission is not cooperating and that no rule bars the probe. At the earlier hearing, Director General of Prosecution T.A. Asaf Ali described the matter as an innovative fraud under investigation. Both versions are the parties’ contentions and have not been tested.
A ranking that changed, and an FIR
The post was Chief (Industry and Infrastructure Division) in the State Planning Board, notified by the Commission in 2022. The examination took place in July 2023, and a shortlist of ten candidates followed in February 2025. One candidate then approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, saying some questions had not been evaluated. After revaluation and interviews, the candidate originally ranked third rose to the first position, while the one originally ranked first, who had joined the Planning Board, dropped to fifth.
In June 2026 the Commission ordered a preliminary inquiry, and its Internal Vigilance Officer reported an evaluation error: one question in 177 answer scripts and nine questions in all 228 scripts had not been evaluated. The Commission says it took corrective steps with the Tribunal’s permission. The Crime Branch then registered an FIR under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 7(c) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It alleges that ten questions carrying 58 marks were left unevaluated, and is examining whether the lapse was an honest error or deliberate wrongdoing.
Two questions for October 27
Two issues arise: whether a constitutional recruitment body can obtain the quashing of a criminal investigation into its own examination, and how far the State may investigate such a body without the prior approval that the Prevention of Corruption Act requires in certain cases. The Court’s questions to both sides suggest that it is looking at how the investigation is being conducted, and not only at the Commission’s challenge to it. The matter returns on October 27, and no finding has been recorded on the merits.
Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission and Another v. State of Kerala and Another [WP(Crl.) No. 1497 of 2026]
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
Date of Hearing: October 24, 2026
Appearances (earlier hearing): Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar for the Kerala Public Service Commission; Director General of Prosecution T.A. Asaf Ali for the State.