A sitting member of the state’s top recruiting body has stepped down just days after a court tore into its functioning and threw out a high-stakes police recruitment. The resignation of Dr. Manju Sharma from the RPSC on Monday comes in the wake of the Rajasthan High Court’s order canceling the 2021 Sub-Inspector recruitment and naming multiple commission members for compromising the exam’s integrity.
In her letter to Governor Haribhau Bagade, Sharma said she has tried to keep her public and private life transparent and honest. She stressed that no police or agency is investigating her, and she has never been named as an accused. Still, she wrote that the controversy has damaged her reputation and the commission’s dignity—enough for her to quit voluntarily.
Sharma was appointed to the commission in October 2020 by the then Congress government, with a tenure running through October 14, 2026. Before that, she taught as an Assistant Professor at the Government College in Bharatpur. Her exit now slices into the commission’s leadership at a delicate moment, with candidates and officials waiting to see how the canceled recruitment will be rebuilt.
What the High Court said
On August 28, the Rajasthan High Court canceled the 2021 Sub-Inspector recruitment, making unusually sharp observations on individual RPSC members. The order named Dr. Manju Sharma along with Babu Lal Katara, Ramuram Raika, Sangeeta Arya, Jaswant Rathi, and Chairman Sanjay Shrotiya. The court said the commission’s integrity had been compromised, citing participation in or knowledge of paper leakage and interference that prejudiced the interview process.
The order went beyond a technical fault. It spoke of systemic problems, pointing to a pattern that, in the court’s view, touched both the written exam and interviews. Courts generally avoid naming serving officials unless the record compels them to. That is why this order has landed so hard—professionally and politically.
Sharma has pushed back on any suggestion of personal wrongdoing. In her resignation, she noted the absence of any pending investigation and framed her decision as a moral call. That distinction matters. Court observations are not the same as a criminal finding. But they do have weight, especially when they lead to the cancellation of an entire recruitment cycle that thousands of candidates had banked on.
Inside the commission, there was little immediate clarity. RPSC Secretary Ramniwas Mehta confirmed receiving a copy of the resignation but said he had not examined it in detail and could not formally confirm its contents. He added that Sharma did not attend office on Monday. The paperwork now sits with the Governor’s office and the commission.
This is not the first time public exams in Rajasthan have been hit by leak allegations. Over the past few years, several recruitments across departments have faced cheating charges, arrests, and repeated rescheduling. The state responded with a tougher anti-cheating law and tighter protocols, but the High Court’s remarks suggest the fix will need to go deeper—into how papers are set, handled, and assessed.
Fallout for candidates—and what happens next
The cancellation leaves candidates in limbo. Many spent years preparing, cleared stages, and waited for finality. Now they face uncertainty about timelines, eligibility windows, and whether the process will restart from scratch or from a midway stage. With each delay, age limits, financial strain, and lost opportunities pile up.
What are the likely next steps? A few scenarios are on the table:
- Fresh recruitment notification: The commission could start over, issuing a new calendar and revised protocols once it addresses the court’s concerns.
- Appeal: The state or the commission could challenge the order in the Supreme Court, seeking a stay or modification.
- Hybrid remedy: A limited redo of compromised stages, if the court allows it, though this hinges on how deep the taint is judged to be.
Each path has trade-offs. A clean restart may take time but rebuild trust. An appeal could save time if successful, but it risks prolonging uncertainty if it fails. Either way, the commission will have to show exactly how it is repairing the vulnerabilities the court flagged.
The political stakes are obvious. The opposition will demand wider accountability and perhaps more resignations. The government will argue it is cleaning up the system while protecting candidate interests. Meanwhile, the commission must keep routine recruitments moving, even as it navigates a leadership shake-up and intense scrutiny.
Expect operational changes. Discussions already underway in several states—and inside recruitment bodies—point to a few immediate upgrades:
- Digitized question-paper workflows with end-to-end encryption and verifiable audit trails.
- Fewer human touchpoints during printing, packaging, and transit; stricter vendor contracts and background checks.
- Randomized center allocation and stronger on-site invigilation with tech aids.
- Wider use of computer-based testing where feasible, with multi-slot normalization and third-party audits.
- Clear conflict-of-interest disclosures for paper setters, evaluators, and interview panellists, backed by penalties.
None of this is foolproof. But layered defenses make leaks harder and easier to trace. A credible system also needs transparency after the exam—publishing cut-offs, releasing answer keys, and explaining interview weightage and moderation. When people understand the rules, they are more likely to accept outcomes, even when they fall short.
For candidates, the ask is simple: a predictable timeline and a fair shot. After years of disruptions, many are exhausted. They want to know whether they should keep preparing for a re-exam, expect an appeal, or move on to other opportunities. Without clarity, their plans—coaching, jobs, family commitments—stay on hold.
For the commission, the immediate housekeeping is bureaucratic but important: formally process the resignation, communicate next steps in the SI case, and outline what changes it is making to safeguard future exams. Even small gestures—regular bulletins, timelines with buffer periods, a public tracker on reforms—can help rebuild trust.
The wider question is institutional. How does a constitutionally backed body insulate itself from both malfeasance and the appearance of it? The High Court’s order puts the onus on internal checks, not just policing by outside agencies. That means tighter ethics rules for members, clearer documentation of decisions, and a culture where raising a red flag is rewarded, not punished.
Key dates in the saga are straightforward:
- October 2020: Manju Sharma appointed as RPSC member.
- 2021: RPSC conducts the Sub-Inspector recruitment process.
- August 28 (this year): Rajasthan High Court cancels the SI recruitment and names commission members in its order.
- Following Monday: Sharma resigns, citing reputational damage and the commission’s dignity.
Several questions still hang in the air. Will the Governor accept the resignation promptly? Will other named members step aside, at least until the dust settles? Will the state seek relief from the Supreme Court? And will investigative agencies open or expand probes in light of the court’s observations?
For now, the message is stark. A marquee recruitment has been scrapped, a commission member has resigned, and the state’s hiring machinery is staring at yet another reset. How the next few weeks are handled—legally, administratively, and ethically—will decide whether candidates regain confidence in the process or brace for a longer wait.