APPSC Group-I 2018: Three Valuations, a Criminal Case and an Unfinished Verdict

The 2021 High Court judgment found that APPSC changed the valuation method without the required disclosure and lawful decision process. A 2024 single-judge judgment found the later valuations illegal and arbitrary, and a 2026 Division Bench found a strong prima facie basis for a forensic investigation. A criminal case also concerns the Hailand payment. Those records establish serious recruitment-process failures. The reviewed archive contains no final appellate judgment, charge sheet, conviction or candidate-level benefit analysis proving that posts were fixed or sold.

The published 718-of-736 figure concerns alterations or overwriting in OMR valuation slips or records, not substitution of 718 original answer books. The same report says the original answer scripts were intact and no answer-book substitution was detected. Marks reportedly rose in 197 cases and fell in 222, so the aggregate number alone does not identify a beneficiary pattern. Because the full SIT report and forensic annexures are not in the archive, the cause and legitimacy of every correction cannot yet be independently classified.

The Chief Minister made that claim in the Assembly. A separate report attributing its account to the SIT says Hailand operators—some working as electricians and clerks—entered, tabulated and bubbled marks already produced by the digital exercise rather than independently assessing subject answers. The court record identifies guards assigned to protect the Hailand strong room, not to grade scripts. Separately, the SIT press-release account says 25 people outside the approved panel did perform digital evaluation. Unauthorised and underqualified involvement is therefore supported, but the literal three-occupation claim collapses different roles into one.

A court-appointed committee found marks on original OMR sheets associated with the alleged Hailand valuation, and the Division Bench said the answer scripts had been kept at the private resort without an authorising file. That contradicts a pure-logistics account. The reported SIT position is narrower: Hailand staff transferred marks already awarded digitally rather than conducting the independent subject-wise manual valuation the 2021 judgment required. The archive therefore supports a marks-entry exercise at Hailand, not a clean, court-compliant manual valuation.

On 13 March 2024 a single judge set aside the 26 May 2022 shortlist and ordered a fresh mains examination. APPSC and selected candidates appealed. On 21 March the Division Bench protected already-appointed candidates from ouster as an interim measure; the appeals were later reopened, and in February 2026 the court ordered selected candidates into non-focal posts pending further orders. The single-judge ruling is a major adverse finding, but the final appellate merits decision remains pending.

The 2021 judgment set aside digital valuation for Notification No.27/2018 because the change was not communicated and the decision was taken through an impermissible process. The court expressly said APPSC could use digital or other advanced modes for future evaluations if the decision was taken strictly according to law. The defect was the adoption and governance of the method in this recruitment, not a blanket ban on digital marking.

Published accounts of the SIT say original answer scripts and selected-candidate barcodes were intact and that no deviation was found in interview-board grading. That narrows the allegation: the available reporting does not support wholesale replacement of answer books. But the same record describes widespread OMR-slip alterations, unauthorised evaluators, private-email workflows, custody failures and incomplete CCTV coverage. Integrity of the books does not by itself validate every valuation record or the final selection; the High Court's assessment remains pending.

The bail record confirms the APPSC payment of Rs.1,14,32,312 to Camsign and records the later complaint, FIR, arrests and prosecution allegation that the resort exercise required investigation. The court described the investigation as being at a threshold stage; its June 2025 order decided bail, not guilt. The reviewed archive contains no final charge sheet, trial judgment or conviction establishing criminal misappropriation.

South First reports that the SIT concluded the procedural lapses did not vitiate selection and that matching barcodes and interview compliance weighed against manipulation. PTI and Times of India, drawing on the same investigation or press release, report extensive unauthorised evaluation and forensic irregularities. Without the full signed report and annexures, those emphases cannot be reconciled independently. The High Court—not a press summary—still has to decide what the findings mean for the pending appeals.