The Gauhati High Court has once again turned the spotlight on the long-pending Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) recruitment scam, asking the Assam government to explain why the recommendations of the Judicial Commission have not been implemented in full even after so many years.
The court’s latest order came during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Manas Pratim Baruah, a member of the organisation Fight Against Injustice of APSC. Baruah has been following the case for years, seeking justice for what he describes as one of the biggest recruitment scams in Assam’s history.
The case concerns the 2013 APSC examination, which had triggered huge controversy after allegations of massive corruption, manipulation, and the use of unfair means came to light. A judicial inquiry commission, led by Justice (Retd.) Biplab Kumar Sharma, had investigated the matter and submitted a detailed report pointing to serious irregularities in the selection process. The report clearly stated that many officers had secured government posts through fraudulent means, including the use of fake answer scripts and manipulation of marks. 
Despite such clear findings, the High Court noted that the state government has not taken any strict action against those involved. The court expressed concern that several officers named in the commission’s report are still holding important government positions.
According to the order, the High Court has now issued notices to a number of such officers. Among them are Assam Civil Service (ACS) officers — Tridip Roy, Nandita Hazarika, Jagadish Brahma, and Bikramaditya Bora — and Assam Police Service (APS) officers — Navanita Sharma, Asima Kalita, Rituraj Daloi, and Amritraj Choudhury.
The court’s notice seeks an explanation from these officers and asks why their appointments should not be cancelled, given the findings of manipulation and forgery in the selection process. The court also directed the state government to clarify why it has allowed such officers to continue in service despite the Judicial Commission’s report and the findings of the Special Investigation Team (SIT).
The High Court further observed that some “protected candidates” — those whose names appeared during the inquiry but were shielded from action — have continued in their jobs without facing any consequences. The court remarked that this reflects a serious failure of administrative responsibility and shows that the state government has not acted with the urgency required in a matter involving large-scale corruption.
