Thiruvananthapuram: Faced with mounting scrutiny after candidates exposed a major evaluation lapse, the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) has ordered an internal vigilance inquiry into the publication of results for recruitment to three top-level posts.

The development comes after it emerged that 10 questions in the descriptive examination had escaped evaluation, putting the commission on the back foot. The delay in furnishing candidates copies of their assessed answer scripts only deepened the controversy.

In a press release, the PSC has now admitted that while evaluating the descriptive answer scripts through its On-Screen Marking (OSM) system, it inadvertently failed to forward 10 questions to examiners for assessment. Consequently, answers to these questions submitted by all 228 candidates who appeared for the common examination for the three posts remained unevaluated.

The commission said the omitted answers would now be evaluated and fresh rank lists drawn. However, since some candidates have already moved the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), any action concerning the two candidates who received an appointment and an advice memo, respectively, will be based on the tribunal’s ruling. The decision could even pave the way for cancelling the appointment already made.

The internal vigilance wing will also examine whether there was any undue delay in providing candidates with copies of their evaluated answer scripts. The PSC, however, attributed the omission of marks in two rank lists to the fact that one more rank list based on the common examination was still pending publication.

The common preliminary examination was conducted on July 13, 2023, for the posts of Chief of the Industry and Infrastructure Division, Chief of the Perspective Planning Division and Chief of the Planning Coordination Division in the State Planning Board, each carrying a basic pay of around ₹1.25 lakh per month. The rank lists were published on May 31, 2025.

Within a month, the candidate who topped the rank list for the post of Chief of the Industry and Infrastructure Division was appointed. The candidate was also an active member of a Left affiliated service organisation. However, doubts over the evaluation process surfaced among other candidates, who questioned the marks awarded and sought copies of their answer scripts. The PSC’s refusal to furnish the documents only deepened their suspicions about the recruitment process.

After the PSC rejected both the RTI application and the subsequent appeal seeking copies of the answer scripts, one of the candidates moved the State Information Commission. With the possibility of a disclosure order looming, the commission finally released the documents, only for the answer scripts to reveal that responses to 10 questions had remained unevaluated.