Why Did Rajasthan HC Summon SOG ADG in SI Recruitment-2021 Case?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Rajasthan High Court is deeply examining the SI Recruitment-2021 case, where serious questions arise about the SOG's role. With allegations of procedural misconduct, the court demands clarity from the SOG’s ADG. What implications does this hold for the future of the recruitment process?
Key Takeaways
- Rajasthan High Court is scrutinizing the SI Recruitment-2021 case.
- The Special Operations Group (SOG) acted independently in cancellation recommendations.
- Only 50 candidates failed the recent surprise test.
- Conflict of interest arose with RPSC member Raika.
- Confidentiality in recruitment processes is under question.
Jaipur, July 14 (NationPress) The proceedings regarding the Sub Inspector (SI) Recruitment-2021 case continued into its second week at the Rajasthan High Court on Monday.
Senior advocate A.K. Sharma, representing the selected candidates, argued that the Special Operations Group (SOG) had independently recommended the cancellation of the recruitment in its report, acting without any directives from the state government.
He further elaborated that the SOG conducted a surprise examination for trainee SIs on March 19, 2024, where only 50 candidates failed. Sharma asserted that it was unjust to cancel the entire recruitment process based on such grounds.
Justice Sameer Jain took note of these arguments, stating, “This is a new fact presented before us. You are also asserting that the SOG acted independently in recommending cancellation.”
The court expressed its desire to obtain clarification from SOG Additional Director General (ADG) V.K. Singh regarding these matters and ordered him to appear in court on Tuesday.
After the selected candidates' counsel concluded their arguments, RPSC’s lawyer M.F. Bag informed the court that the Commission had submitted its recommendation to complete the recruitment process to the government on June 30, 2023.
This recommendation came nearly two months after the arrest of former Commission member Babulal Katara on April 18.
Another member, Ramu Ram Raika, had previously revealed that his son and daughter were candidates in the SI recruitment. Due to this conflict of interest, Raika was removed from the recruitment process.
The bench noted that although Raika was excluded, he would likely have knowledge of internal procedures.
In response, the RPSC counsel insisted that the entire recruitment process within the Commission is handled under strict confidentiality.
However, the court sharply remarked, “The level of confidentiality maintained is clearly reflected in how this recruitment process has unfolded.”
Point of View
The developments in the Rajasthan High Court regarding the SI Recruitment-2021 case highlight significant concerns about procedural integrity and transparency in public service appointments. The court's insistence on accountability from the SOG reflects a broader need for trust in recruitment processes, essential for maintaining public confidence in governance.
NationPress
14/07/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the SI Recruitment-2021 case about?
The case concerns the alleged unfair cancellation of the Sub Inspector recruitment process by the Special Operations Group (SOG) without government directives.
Why was the SOG ADG summoned?
The Rajasthan High Court summoned the SOG ADG to clarify their independent recommendation for the cancellation of the recruitment process.
What was the outcome of the surprise test conducted by the SOG?
In the surprise test conducted on March 19, 2024, only 50 candidates failed, raising questions about the justification for canceling the entire recruitment process.
What conflict of interest was identified in the case?
Ramu Ram Raika, a member of the RPSC, was excluded from the process due to a conflict of interest as his children were candidates for the SI recruitment.
What did the court say about the confidentiality of the recruitment process?
The court commented on the apparent lack of confidentiality in the recruitment process, indicating that the integrity of such processes must be upheld.
