APPSC Group-I recruitment: HC orders appointment of 326 candidates to non- focal posts

A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising Justices Battu Devanand and A. Hari Haranadha Sarma on Wednesday directed the State government to appoint the 326 candidates selected in the Group-I main examinations conducted by the A.P. Public Service Commission(APPSC) in December 2020 to non-focal posts, until further orders. The court also directed the Chief Secretary to submit a compliance report before the Registrar(Judicial) within a week.

The Bench was disposing of a batch of interlocutory applications(IAs) filed by certain unsuccessful candidates challenging the process of digital evaluation. Describing the facts and circumstances as peculiar, the court recorded the contention of counsel for the petitioners that the selected candidates, if appointed to focal posts, would be in a position to influence the course of any inquiry or information sought by the court, by virtue of their official positions.

The court took note of the constitution of a Special Investigation Team by the State government to probe allegations of misappropriation of funds, conspiracy, cheating, breach of trust, manipulation of official records and related offences. It also referred to the report of a three-member committee headed by a former High Court judge on the functioning of the APPSC, which incidentally examined the alleged entrustment of valuation of Group I answer scripts to a private agency and the payments made in that regard.

The notification for recruitment to 169 Group I posts was issued on December 31, 2018. The preliminary examination was conducted on May 26, 2019, in which 9,679 candidates qualified. The mains were held from December 14 to 20, 2020. Of the 6,807 candidates who appeared for the mains, 326 were declared qualified for interviews and attended them as scheduled. At that stage, certain candidates approached the court by filing writ petitions questioning the credibility of the digital evaluation process, alleging violations of prescribed norms.

After hearing the batch of writ petitions and connected interlocutory applications, the Division Bench observed in its order that it was constrained to form a prima facie opinion that the sanctity of the evaluation of OMR answer scripts by the Commission appeared to have been vitiated at a systemic level.