Gauhati High Court Observes No APSC Exam Complaints Since 2014 Scam
The Gauhati High Court, while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the 2014 cash-for-job scam in the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC), made a significant observation. The court noted that no complaints have been reported in APSC examinations since that notorious incident, suggesting the state government may have already implemented recommendations from an inquiry committee.
Background of the PIL and Inquiry Commission
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury was presiding over the PIL filed in 2023 by petitioners Pritom Hazarika and Jon Jyoti Sarmah. Their objective was to ensure timely action by state authorities following the report submitted by Justice (Retd) BK Sharma. He had been appointed as a One-Man Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations of irregularities, corruption, and malpractice in the APSC selection processes for the years 2013-2014.
Advocate S Borthakur, representing the petitioners, argued that the commission conducted a detailed investigation and submitted its report on April 2, 2022. However, he contended that no concrete action has been taken by the state on the commission's recommendations, some of which he described as essential for maintaining the purity and sanctity of public examinations. Borthakur emphasized that the government's inaction undermines the very purpose of the inquiry and that the state cannot remain passive on recommendations from a judicially directed commission.
Court's Observations on APSC Examinations
After hearing both parties, the court highlighted a crucial point. "What has caught our attention is that after 2014, every year, APSC has conducted public examinations but there has not been any reported complaint so as to question the purity of such processes," the court stated. This observation led the bench to infer that all necessary remedial measures may have been taken, even if not explicitly stated as following the commission's recommendations.
The court further elaborated on the nature of inquiry commission reports, noting they are recommendatory and not binding on the government. "It is trite that such recommendations are not binding on the government and, therefore, the courts cannot compel the government to implement the report. The government would be perfectly within its rights to either implement the report; or reject it; or partially implement it," the court explained. Implementation falls under administrative priorities, with the court's role being to ensure the report is properly laid before the legislature, considered by the government, and assessed for mala fide or arbitrary rejection.
Conclusion and Implications
Given the absence of reported corruption in later APSC selection processes, the court concluded that most general suggestions from the inquiry have likely been implemented. "Since we have not been made aware of later selection processes conducted by the APSC to have been plagued by any large scale corruption, it is understood that most of the suggestions, which are of general nature, have already been implemented and under these circumstances, we find it difficult to accede to the request of the petitioners for issuing any directive for implementation of the report," the court stated.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in directing administrative actions while acknowledging improvements in APSC's examination integrity post-2014. The case highlights ongoing efforts to combat corruption in public service recruitment in Assam, with the court's observations serving as a benchmark for future transparency and accountability in state examinations.
