Kerala Information Commission pulls up PSC, orders release of Planning Board recruitment records

The Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) suffered a setback on Monday after the State Information Commission directed it to disclose examination records related to the controversial recruitment for the post of Chief (Industry & Infrastructure) in the Kerala State Planning Board.

Allowing a second appeal filed by candidate Shyamkrishnan K, the Commission directed the PSC's State Public Information Officer (SPIO) to furnish all the requested records within seven days and submit a compliance report. It observed that withholding the information without any legal basis under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was "unjustified and unacceptable."

The Commission ordered the PSC to provide copies of the answer scripts, the marks secured by all candidates in Paper I, Paper II and the interview, copies of the examination papers, the work experience certificates submitted by the first and second rank holders, and the order or decision fixing the maximum interview marks at 25.

The case stems from allegations of irregularities in the recruitment examination held on July 13, 2023, which was conducted as a common test for three Planning Board posts — Chief (Industry & Infrastructure), Chief (Perspective Planning Division) and Chief (Plan Co-ordination Division). A total of 228 candidates appeared for the examination. The rank list for the Industry & Infrastructure post was published on May 31, 2025, and the first-ranked candidate, Arun J Prathap, was appointed the following month.

The controversy surfaced after Shyamkrishnan, who secured the third rank, obtained a copy of his answer script under the RTI Act and found that answers to Questions 9 to 18 had not been evaluated during the digital On-Screen Marking (OSM) process. A preliminary verification by the PSC confirmed that the same 10 questions had remained unevaluated in the answer scripts of all 228 candidates. Despite this, the Commission allegedly did not revise the evaluation or disclose the lapse.

Seeking further details, Shyamkrishnan filed an RTI application on July 10, 2025, requesting the marks of all candidates, copies of the work experience certificates of the top two rank holders and the order fixing the maximum interview marks. The PSC declined to provide the marks, arguing that the examination was common to three posts and that one of the rank lists was yet to be published. It also refused to provide the order relating to the interview marks, while agreeing only to furnish the work experience certificates upon payment of the prescribed fee.

After the PSC rejected his first appeal, Shyamkrishnan approached the State Information Commission.

The Commission found that the applicant had sought information only in relation to the Chief (Industry & Infrastructure) post, whose rank list had already been published. It held that the PSC had failed to justify why the marks of candidates in that rank list could not be disclosed merely because the rank list for another post arising from the common examination was still pending.

The Commission further observed that even if there was a court order restraining appointments, it could not be cited as a reason to deny information under the RTI Act. Holding that all the requested records were disclosable, it directed the PSC to provide the information within seven days and submit a compliance report to the Information Commission, disposing of the appeal.