Karnataka’s Public Service Commission is facing a crisis that can no longer be dismissed as a series of isolated examination irregularities. The investigation into former KPSC Controller of Examinations Gyanendra Kumar Gangwar has reportedly uncovered a much wider problem. Following his interrogation, the Enforcement Directorate informed a Bengaluru court that at least 13 recruitment exercises between 2024 and 2026 may have involved systematic extortion.
The allegations include deliberate manipulation of preliminary merit lists to enable confidential candidate information to be accessed and monetised. Alleged exchanges between the examination machinery and commission members, including its suspended chairman, point to a systemic failure. The key question is no longer merely whether an examination was compromised, but whether the recruitment machinery itself was compromised at both Executive and constitutional levels.
This crisis is not an isolated event. KPSC has been dogged by recruitment irregularities, paper leaks and delays for over a decade. The 2011 gazetted probationers’ recruitment—involving 362 posts and 1.38 lakh applicants—became a prolonged administrative controversy. The selection was cancelled following serious findings of corruption and nepotism. Yet in 2022, the state legislature passed a validation Act to revive those appointments. On October 29, the Supreme Court struck down the Act as unconstitutional and terminated the appointments made under it.
The court directed the state to initiate fresh recruitment with a one-time age relaxation for earlier candidates. The judgement reaffirmed that legislative power cannot be used to bypass judicial rulings while leaving underlying illegalities intact. It also highlighted the severe human cost: a recruitment process initiated 15 years ago has still not delivered finality.
The current generation of aspirants is understandably unwilling to let this cycle repeat. Recently, a delegation led by former MLC V S Ugrappa proposed to postpone the November 15 examination for 319 posts until the House Committee recommendations headed by MLA R V Deshpande are implemented. Some have even suggested shifting recruitment to the Karnataka Examinations Authority. At the same time, public declarations by political leaders suggesting that KPSC might simply be “closed down” fail to offer a lawful path forward.
Neither halting recruitment indefinitely nor making administrative threats of closure provides a viable solution. The Constitution does not permit a state to abolish its public service commission by Executive declaration—Article 315(1) explicitly mandates a commission for every state. When public confidence collapses, political posturing is no substitute for institutional mechanisms. To restore candidate trust, Karnataka must look to the constitutional options already available.
Article 315(4) provides a practical interim arrangement. Under it, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) may, at the request of the Governor and with the approval of the President, agree to conduct recruitment for a state. Karnataka should request UPSC to handle its gazetted Group A and B recruitments—particularly the gazetted probationers’ exams—for a limited period of three to five years.
Practically, this arrangement requires a formal request by the Governor, presidential approval, and UPSC’s consent based on its operational capacity. Crucially, it does not surrender state autonomy. Karnataka’s service rules, reservation matrix, Kannada-language requirement and local quota provisions would be contractually preserved and applied by UPSC. The examining agency temporarily changes; the state’s substantive policy control does not. This step is not a permanent handover, but an emergency stabiliser to buy time while KPSC undergoes structural repair.
That structural reform must begin with how commission members are appointed. Article 317 deliberately makes removal difficult—requiring a Presidential order following a Supreme Court inquiry—to protect institutional independence. Because removal is complex, selection must be exceptionally rigorous. Echoing the spirit of the Hota Committee recommendations and practices adopted in other states, Karnataka should establish a statutory selection process.
This should feature an independent search committee operating under publicly notified criteria, alongside a selection committee that includes representation from the government, the opposition and an independent constitutional authority (such as the Chief Justice of the high court). Curating panels through an open, multi-member framework raises the political cost of partisan packing and guards against turning selection into a routine executive ratification.
The examination architecture needs matching operational controls. Question paper preparation, printing, custody, evaluation and result tabulation must feature digital audit trails, multi-person authorisation and independent security reviews. Marks, cut-offs and marking sheets should be published automatically within a strict timeframe. Interviews should carry limited weight and be digitally recorded. Lower-tier recruitments can be permanently shifted to a strengthened Karnataka Examinations Authority, allowing KPSC to focus exclusively on high-level civil services.
Accountability must also be pursued on parallel tracks. While criminal investigations proceed against individuals, the state should use Article 317 wherever credible material warrants action against serving members. Systemic repair cannot wait for every court case to conclude: individual prosecution and institutional reform must move together.
The state cannot cite KPSC’s constitutional status to defend its autonomy while disclaiming responsibility for its operational failures. Nor can it ask aspirants to invest years of preparation on faith alone. The Supreme Court's decisions and current investigations both signal that incremental fixes are no longer enough.
Article 315(4) provides a constitutional bridge out of this stalemate. By temporarily entrusting gazetted recruitment to UPSC, Karnataka can rebuild candidate trust today while overhauling KPSC for tomorrow. A public service commission exists to safeguard merit and equal opportunity; its credibility depends on ensuring that entry into public service is decided by capability, not money or access.
Sanjiv Kumar | Member, Central Administrative Tribunal, former Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka and retired IAS officer
(Views are personal)
