Advertisement
Akhil Gogoi alleges shielding of 'scam-tainted' APSC officers; Himanta vows SC appeal

Akhil Gogoi alleges shielding of 'scam-tainted' APSC officers; Himanta vows SC appeal

A day after the Gauhati High Court ordered the reinstatement of 52 civil service officials dismissed over the infamous APSC cash-for-job scam, political temperatures in Assam soared, with Raijor Dal MLA Akhil Gogoi accusing the BJP government of shielding the guilty, while Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma termed the verdict "painful" and vowed to challenge it in the Supreme Court.
 

The High Court’s division bench ruled that 52 officers, who were terminated for alleged irregularities in the 2013–14 Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC), must be reinstated — provided they had completed their probation period. 
 

The court cited procedural lapses, including the absence of show-cause notices and departmental enquiries, as grounds for invalidating the terminations. The judgment gives the government 50 days to reinstate the officers, while also granting a 30-day window to initiate fresh departmental proceedings if needed.
 

Akhil Gogoi: “This is inherited corruption”
 

Reacting sharply, MLA Akhil Gogoi launched a scathing attack on the Himanta Biswa Sarma-led BJP government, calling the verdict a consequence of deliberate mishandling by the administration. “This is not just procedural failure — this is inherited corruption,” Gogoi said, alleging that key aides of the Chief Minister were among those who benefitted from the manipulated recruitment.
 

Gogoi accused the government of violating principles of natural justice intentionally. “Was the Advocate General not aware that a show-cause notice is mandatory? If the government wasn't advised properly, why hasn’t he been removed?” he questioned.
 

He claimed that the government’s reluctance to dissolve the 2013–14 batch — even after the Biplab Sharma Committee found that nearly 90% of the appointments were fraudulent — was evidence of political protection. “The reason is clear: those close to the top were involved. A guilty government cannot conduct a fair investigation,” he asserted, demanding CM Himanta Biswa Sarma’s resignation.
 

CM Sarma: “We will appeal to Supreme Court”
 

Responding to the controversy while speaking at a Yoga Day event in Baksa, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said the verdict was deeply disappointing and vowed to challenge it in the Supreme Court.
 

“The judgement by the division bench on the APSC matter is painful and has led to disappointment for us,” Sarma told reporters. “It has come at a time when the Assam government has been taking strong steps to ensure merit-based recruitment.”
 

Although the Chief Minister noted he had not yet gone through the full judgment, he described the reported conclusions as “unfortunate” and “contrary to the spirit of clean governance.”
 

“We will definitely appeal before the Supreme Court. Until the last moment, we will ensure that no one who got their job through corrupt means is reinstated,” Sarma said, reinforcing his government’s stand on zero tolerance for corruption.
 

The cash-for-jobs scam, which came to light in 2016, led to the arrest of over 70 people, including former APSC chairman Rakesh Kumar Paul and 57 officers recruited during the tainted 2013–14 batch. Initial actions, including suspensions and dismissals, were carried out during the tenure of former Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal.
 

As the state prepares to escalate the case to the Supreme Court, the spotlight remains on both the legal complexities and the political stakes. While the High Court emphasized procedural justice, opposition voices argue that the lapses were intentional, aimed at shielding insiders. The government, meanwhile, insists it remains committed to cleansing the system.
 

With 52 officers now poised for possible reinstatement and the state readying for a legal battle in the apex court, the APSC scam — one of Assam’s biggest recruitment scandals — has once again become a flashpoint in the debate over governance, accountability, and political integrity.