Mistakes galore in key answers for APP test

‘Prime Minister will administer the oath for President of India’. ‘President of India will be elected by people directly’.

These are samples of key answers released for questions for test to recruit assistant public prosecutor-cum-assistant general pleader here. According to a candidate, who alerted the department, 61 out of 100 answers were wrong!
The prosecution department, which released the key answers has admitted the blunder, explaining it away as ‘typing mistakes’.

The written test was conducted on June 16 and the key answers were released on June 19. After receiving many complaints, the department released revised the key answers on June 25. Many advocates, who appeared for the test, are happy that their score is increased after release of revised answers.

“My score was just 30 and now it is 85,” said a young advocate in Belgaum.

dna spoke to officials in prosecution and home department, and what came out of it is that there could be a scam surrounding the recruitment. According to norms, key answers should be released only after approval of selection committee constituted for the recruitment. But, member-secretary Chandrashekhar G Hiremath released the list on website without going through the process.

Principal Secretary to Home department Raghavendra Auradkar, who is a member of the selection committee, said he was out of station during the process and was not aware of the goof-up. Sources in prosecution department said no meeting was conducted after the written test.

The irony is that though committee is headed by additional chief secretary for Home S Umesh and includes the registrar general of Karnataka high court, an IGP rank officer, the principal law secretary and others, none of them appears to be aware of the recruitment. One of the members said the committee resolution on appointing Hiremath as member-secretary was not taken in any of the meetings.

A retired official from Gulbarga doubted that Hiremath, as in-charge director cannot conduct recruitment drive, citing Indian Law Reporter-2006 (KAR 3163, BN Dhotrad v/s The Board of Directors). Even according to KCSR rule 32 and 68, an officer in charge cannot exercise any substantive powers of office.
Moreover, Hiremath is not eligible for the post of director of prosecution, as he is from the prosecutor cadre, he explained.