Picked by BJP, protected by Congress: Face of Karnataka job scams stayed on despite red flags

Why in the News

The chairman of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC), Shivashankarappa S Sahukar, was suspended by the Governor on 25 August on the State Cabinet’s recommendation, over the selection of his daughter to a State government post and the leak of a recruitment examination paper. Internal records show the irregularities were flagged by senior officers of the Commission at least four times between 2019 and this year, across State governments led by both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress. A KPSC secretary formally recommended action under Article 317 of the Constitution against the chairman and four members in January 2024, and was placed on paid leave the day after being asked to withdraw the letter. The tension is that the constitutional protection designed to keep a Public Service Commission independent of the executive also makes its removal route dependent on the same executive. Recruitment to over 2,000 government posts stalled while the standoff ran.

Why is a Public Service Commission member so difficult to remove?

1. Who appoints and on what terms: The chairman and members of a State Public Service Commission are appointed by the Governor, and Article 316 requires that, as nearly as may be, half the members should have held government office for at least 10 years.
2. The category that carries no qualification: The remaining members are classified as “non official”, and no specific educational or professional qualification is prescribed for them.
3. The only removal route: Removal for misbehaviour runs through Article 317, on a reference by the President to the Supreme Court and on that Court’s advice, so a State government cannot remove a member on its own finding.
4. What that leaves the State with: The State’s only available step is to recommend a reference and to suspend in the interim, which makes removal a political decision rather than an administrative one.

How was the appointment made in the first place?

1. The timing of the entry: The appointment to the Commission came on 31 August 2019, 36 days after the BJP Chief Minister took oath, under the “official” category alongside two non official members.
2. The reclassification: He was shifted to the non official category after objections that he had never held government office, which the official category requires for at least 10 years.
3. The professional record on file: KPSC records show an agricultural engineering degree in 1988, work as a supervisor between January 1989 and August 1991, and a contractual post from July 1996 in a National Cooperative Union of India (NCUI) project.
4. What the record omitted: The NCUI decided in March 2010 not to extend that contract beyond March 2011, citing performance that was “not found satisfactory”, and there are no public records of engagements after that until the KPSC posting.
5. The elevation to chairman: The State Cabinet decided on 17 March 2021 to appoint him chairman, on the same day the serving chairman’s tenure was set to end on 3 April, against a precedent in which the previous appointment took over a month and a formal screening process.

What happened to the officers who flagged the irregularities?

1. The first standoff: The KPSC secretary appointed in July 2022 introduced transparency measures on the Commission’s website and social media accounts, and the chairman responded by withholding approval on files and holding meetings that bypassed the secretary.
2. The first removal: That secretary reported to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on 13 September 2023 that “departures from the rules” had produced “misuse of authority by the Chairperson and injustice to meritorious candidates”, and was removed from the post the next day.
3. The second refusal: His successor declined in December 2023 to approve the appointment of the Commission’s Head of Legal Cell, selected by a three member panel headed by the chairman, citing lack of transparency.
4. The retaliation recorded: The chairman and five other members stayed away from key meetings and gave written notice that they would not sign files until their candidate was appointed.
5. The second removal: On 25 January 2024 she wrote to the Governor through the Chief Secretary seeking action under Article 317 for “misuse of authority”, was told on 6 February to withdraw the letter or go on leave, and was placed on paid leave the following day.
6. What followed immediately: On 13 February 2024 the Commission approved the chairman’s chosen legal cell candidate and withdrew the notification inviting fresh applications.

What did the standoff cost recruitment?

1. Appointments frozen: The refusal to sign files stalled recruitment to more than 2,000 government posts, with meetings repeatedly postponed and files left without orders or reasoned rejections.
2. The veterinary recruitment: In the recruitment of 400 veterinary doctors, 29 selected candidates, including an alleged relative of the chairman, are accused of receiving the question paper a day before the January 2026 examination.
3. What the investigation found on that leak: The Criminal Investigation Department’s probe has found that candidates paid up to Rs 80 lakh to middlemen, were housed at resorts and hotels, coached on answers, and driven to examination centres on the day.
4. The daughter’s selection: Recruitment to 50 posts of Industrial Extension Officer was called in March 2024, and the chairman’s daughter was selected in January 2026 after producing an income certificate showing annual family income of Rs 40,000, against his own recorded gross salary of Rs 3.60 lakh a month in 2023.
5. The wider exposure: The investigation has also raised questions over the recruitment of 384 Karnataka Administrative Service gazetted probationers, for which over two lakh aspirants appeared in the 2024 preliminary examination.
6. The record before this: Major recruitment scams involving the Commission came to light in 1998, 1999, 2004 and 2011, involving a secretary, two chairmen and a member.

Why was a reforms panel’s recommendation reversed rather than implemented?

1. What the panel recommended: On 3 February 2023 the Karnataka Administrative Reforms Commission II recommended that the Commission’s total strength, including the chairperson, be cut from 14 to eight.
2. The comparison it relied on: It noted that Maharashtra and West Bengal had three member commissions, and that apart from Kerala no other State then had more than eight members.
3. The qualification it proposed: For an appointee drawn from academia it suggested at least 10 years of experience as a full professor.
4. What the government did instead: Four weeks later the Chief Minister directed that sanctioned strength be raised from a chairperson and 13 members to a chairperson and 15, the regulation was amended on 15 March 2023, and a single non official member was appointed the next day.
5. What the courts have said about qualifications: A Karnataka High Court bench hearing a case on selection irregularities observed that it “bewilders any sensible man” how unqualified members could interview meritorious candidates who are graduates and post graduates in specialised fields.

Who was put in charge of the Commission’s own inquiry?

1. The choice of panel head: The Commission picked the member appointed in March 2023 to head its four member committee investigating the allegations against the chairman, on 25 July, a day after police registered a case over the veterinary recruitment.
2. The stated basis for that choice: The interim chairman’s stated ground was her seniority as a member, and her recorded qualifications are BSc and BEd degrees with an appointment in recognition of social service.
3. The business connection on record: Corporate filings show she was a director of a construction company from its incorporation in 2013, and that her directorship ceased on 15 March 2023, the day before her KPSC appointment.
4. The company’s position: Filings for 2025 record her shareholding at 10% and her husband’s at 90%, and the company’s revenue rose from about Rs 25 crore in 2021-22 to Rs 65 crore in 2022-23.
5. How the inquiry ended: The Commission dissolved the panel after the State government transferred the police investigation to the Criminal Investigation Department on 28 July.

Challenges to the integrity of State Public Service Commissions

1. Appointment is discretionary while removal is not: A State can appoint a member on its own decision but can only recommend removal through the President and the Supreme Court, so a wrong appointment is far cheaper to make than to undo. Eg. The elevation to chairman was cleared by the Cabinet on a single day, while the Article 317 recommendation against him went nowhere for over two years.
   The Fix: Require a published selection procedure with stated eligibility criteria and a search committee record for every appointment to a State Public Service Commission.
2. No prescribed qualification for non official members: Where the Constitution fixes no educational or professional bar for half the seats, political suitability becomes the operative test. Eg. A reforms panel recommendation to require 10 years as a full professor for academic appointees was never acted on.
   The Fix: Prescribe minimum qualifications for non official members by State regulation, since Article 316 leaves the field open rather than closed.
3. The officer who reports wrongdoing has no protection: A secretary who records irregularities serves at the State’s pleasure, so the report and the reporter can both be removed in a day. Eg. Two successive secretaries who flagged misuse of authority were removed or sent on leave within a day of writing.
   The Fix: Fix a minimum tenure for the Commission’s secretary and require reasons to be recorded before a premature transfer.
4. Internal inquiry into an institution’s own head: A committee of members appointed by, and serving alongside, the person under inquiry cannot produce a finding that survives scrutiny. Eg. The internal panel was headed by a member appointed during the same period whose own appointment was contested.
   The Fix: Refer any allegation against a chairman or member to an external agency at the outset, with the internal route closed by regulation.
5. Recruitment stops while the dispute runs: Aspirants lose examination cycles and age eligibility while files stay unsigned or selections stay under investigation. Eg. Over 2,000 posts were stalled during the standoff, and further recruitments are now under investigation or in litigation.
   The Fix: Provide a statutory age relaxation and a fresh cycle for candidates of any recruitment annulled or delayed by an inquiry into the recruiting body.

Conclusion

The case tests whether an institution insulated from the executive can be held to account by it. Insulation under Article 317 was designed to stop a government removing a Commission member it found inconvenient, and it has instead protected a chairman whom two governments found it convenient to keep. The officials with a statutory duty to report were the ones the system could move, which is the inversion the record shows. The thing to watch is whether the State now forwards an Article 317 reference to the President, since suspension by itself leaves the office filled and the removal question open.

Back2Basics: State Public Service Commission

1. Constitutional basis: Article 315 provides for a Public Service Commission for the Union and one for each State, and a Joint Commission may be created for two or more States by Parliament on their resolutions.
2. Tenure: Under Article 316 a member of a State Commission holds office for six years or until the age of 62, whichever is earlier.
3. Functions: Under Article 320 it conducts examinations for appointments to State services and is consulted on recruitment methods, promotions, transfers and disciplinary matters.
4. Accountability: Under Article 323 it submits an annual report on its work to the Governor, which is laid before the State legislature along with a memorandum on any advice of the Commission that was not accepted.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2024, GS2, 10] The Doctrine of Democratic Governance makes it necessary that the public perception of the integrity and commitment of civil servants becomes absolutely positive. Discuss.”