Government’s own answers leave crucial questions unresolved

• How were sports certificates authenticated when complete physical and digital records were unavailable?
• If Prabhakar qualified TET for the School Assistant category, how was he appointed as an SGT?
• Does the absence of earlier objections automatically make the disputed Judo certificates genuine?
• If the AP Softball Association received SAAP recognition only in 2026, how could that validate certificates used for appointments in 2025?
• On the one hand, officials admit that committee reviews, Revenue inquiries and Vigilance investigations are still underway.
• On the other, the Government claims that the entire recruitment process was flawless.
• Why not place candidate-wise records in the public domain and settle the questions once and for all?

The press conference conducted by Government officials on Mega DSC yesterday, instead of clearing the doubts raised among DSC aspirants and answering allegations raised by the Opposition and the media, has opened up several more questions.

School Education Secretary Ansaria and SAAP MD Bharani, while responding to several pointed questions from journalists, acknowledged that some crucial cases were still under inquiry. They said a committee was examining the TET eligibility of Kurnool candidate Ediga Prabhakar, Revenue authorities were probing cases involving changes from BC to EWS reservation certificates, and a Vigilance inquiry was underway into disputed Judo certificates.

If these matters are still under investigation, the fundamental question is: how can the Government give itself a clean chit for the entire recruitment process?

Meanwhile, social media users have been ridiculing the attempts to portray the press conference as a decisive rebuttal and questioning Minister Nara Lokesh over the unresolved issues.

372 Appointments without a Written Exam

was verification rigorous enough?

In the notification issued on May 1, 2025, the Government stated that 421 teacher posts under the Sports Quota would be filled without a written examination. Eventually, 372 posts were filled. Officials maintain that these appointments were made under the three per cent horizontal reservation for sportspersons.

When Government jobs are awarded without a written examination and are based almost entirely on sporting achievements and certificates, should not the authentication process be exceptionally rigorous?

Yet officials themselves admitted that SAAP does not possess complete physical and digital records relating to several old competitions.

If comprehensive records were unavailable, on what standard and through what documentary process were the certificates of all 372 selected candidates authenticated?

Why Is Prabhakar’s Eligibility Being Examined Only After Appointment?

Ediga Prabhakar of Kurnool district was appointed under the Sports Quota despite questions over his TET qualification.

He secured 65 marks in TET. Under the DSC notification norms, out of 150 marks, OC candidates require 90 marks, BC candidates 75 marks, and SC, ST, PwD and Ex-Servicemen candidates 60 marks to qualify.

Prabhakar belongs to the BC category and therefore required at least 75 marks. He secured only 65 marks, yet was appointed as an SGT under the Sports Quota.

Officials responded that he had secured 77 marks in the 2018 TET Paper-II-B, which was above the required 75 marks. However, they have now appointed a three-member committee to examine his eligibility for the SGT post.

The issue is not merely whether he secured 75 or 77 marks somewhere.

Paper-II-B pertains to School Assistant eligibility. It does not automatically establish eligibility for a Secondary Grade Teacher post.

If Prabhakar qualified TET for a School Assistant category, how was he appointed as an SGT without establishing the required SGT TET eligibility?

This is what officials failed to answer.

Eligibility should have been conclusively verified before appointment. Referring the issue to a committee after completing the recruitment raises a serious question about the integrity of the verification mechanism.

If the committee has not yet submitted its report, on what basis is the appointment already being treated as valid?

How Did a BC Certificate Become an EWS Certificate?

The Government also failed to provide a clear explanation regarding candidates who had applied under the BC category in 2018 but obtained jobs under the EWS category in 2025.

Officials said the appointments were made on the basis of EWS certificates issued by the Tahsildar.

But EWS reservation is ordinarily meant for persons who are not covered by SC, ST or OBC reservation.

Therefore, which document is correct?

Was the earlier BC certificate wrong?

Was it subsequently cancelled?

Or is the EWS certificate now submitted for recruitment incorrect?

More importantly, how were the appointments finalised before the Revenue inquiry into these conflicting caste/reservation records was completed?

Khammam Judo Row: Was It a Junior Championship or a Senior Championship?

Certificates showing that a Senior Judo Championship was held in Khammam from October 19 to 21, 2013 have come under dispute.

Available records indicate that only a Junior competition was conducted in Khammam on those dates, while the Senior competition was held separately in Hyderabad on different dates.

Officials say the concerned Judo Association has confirmed that the certificates are genuine.

But several basic records remain unanswered:

Where is the original event register?

Where is the list of participants?

Where is the official results sheet?

Where is the register containing the serial numbers of certificates issued?

And most importantly, how can asking the very association that issued the disputed certificate to authenticate it amount to independent verification?

Why Do Vijayawada Judo Records Show Two Different Dates?

Some certificates state that Judo competitions were held in Vijayawada from November 11 to 13, 2014.

Another record indicates that the first Senior Inter-District competition was held on November 28 and 29.

There are also apparent differences in certificate formats and signature placements.

Officials said Nossam Karishma and Shaik Imam Hussain secured second place in different categories. But that does not answer the discrepancy in the dates.

Were two separate Senior competitions conducted in the same month?

If so, where are the official results of both competitions?

Imam Hussain Case: The Question Was About the Medal, Not His District Eligibility

Questions were raised because Imam Hussain’s certificate states that he won a medal in the 73-kg category, while available results reportedly show another person’s name in the same category.

Officials responded that although he was studying B.Ed in Karnataka, he was eligible to represent Kurnool.

But that addresses a different issue.

Whether he was eligible to represent Kurnool is one question.

Who actually won the medal in the 73-kg category is another.

Why did the Government not answer the specific question by producing the official results sheet?

21 Selections From One Mandal, Seven From One Family — Why Not Publish the Records?

Questions have also been raised over 21 Judo selections from a single mandal in Kurnool district, including seven candidates who are reportedly related.

Being relatives, or a large number of candidates coming from the same mandal, does not by itself prove wrongdoing.

But officials themselves admit that the authenticity of the certificates connected with these cases is still under Vigilance examination.

If the investigation has not been completed, how can the Government already declare that all these cases are in order?

Why not publish the competition details, official results and verification records concerning all 21 candidates?

Does the Absence of an Objection Make a Certificate Genuine?

Officials said a 1:5 provisional list was published, objections were invited, and no complaints were received at that stage against the Judo certificates.

But the absence of an objection does not establish the genuineness of a certificate.

Ordinary candidates cannot reasonably be expected to possess historical competition registers, participant lists or results from events held many years ago. Verification of such records is the responsibility of the recruiting and sports authorities.

There are also different dates being cited regarding the objection period — August 4, August 8–14 and August 13.

Why has the Government not published an authoritative and complete timeline of the objection process?

How Did Appalaraju’s Brother’s Certificate Enter His Application?

Officials acknowledged that a certificate belonging to Pedda Appalaraju’s brother was initially uploaded in Appalaraju’s application.

They said the correct certificate was later submitted during the correction process and was also produced during physical verification.

They further said that his name appearing as “PANDA” in the National Games records was merely a typographical error.

But several questions remain:

When exactly was the correction made?

Was it made within the officially permitted correction window?

What does the upload history show?

Where is the confirmation issued by the National Federation?

Only by releasing these records can it be established whether this was genuinely a human error or a serious failure in certificate verification.

Padmaja Case: Why Not Produce the Results Sheet?

Konada Padmaja reportedly possesses a certificate stating that she secured second place in an Inter-District Athletics competition at around 40 years of age.

Officials correctly pointed out that there is no rule preventing participation merely because of her age.

Age alone does not invalidate the certificate.

But that was never the central question.

The real issue is whether she actually participated in that competition and secured second place.

Why not release the official results sheet, list of participants and the relevant Form-II certificate?

Recognition in 2026 — How Can It Validate a 2025 Recruitment?

Officials also responded to questions regarding MLA Koona Ravi Kumar signing Softball certificates.

They said the Softball Association of India had authorised him to scrutinise certificates on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh association.

At the same time, officials acknowledged that the Andhra Pradesh Softball Association received SAAP recognition only in 2026.

That raises an obvious question:

How can recognition granted in 2026 retrospectively validate certificates used in a recruitment conducted in 2025?

Did the association possess formal verification authority before receiving SAAP recognition?

If so, where is the Government order, authorisation or other official document establishing that authority?

Why the Silence on Other Sports Disciplines?

Questions have also been raised regarding certificates in Kabaddi, Ball Badminton, Fencing, Swimming and other disciplines.

Officials merely said that specific complaints would be examined.

They did not provide candidate-wise answers containing competition details, dates or the authorities that verified the certificates.

Why should the scrutiny be confined only to Judo?

Why is the Government unwilling to conduct a uniform audit of certificates relating to all 372 Sports Quota appointments?

Without a Skill Test, How Were Genuine Sportspersons Distinguished From Fraudulent Claimants?

The 2025 notification did not provide for a skill test. Therefore, not conducting such a test may not technically amount to a violation of that notification.

But when the entire selection process depends overwhelmingly on sports certificates, removing a practical skill test eliminates an important safeguard against fraudulent claims.

Officials now say that if the High Court directs them, a test can be conducted for selected candidates, and that a skill test may be considered in future recruitments.

That itself raises another question:

If a skill test is now considered an important safeguard for future recruitments, why was such a safeguard absent in the recruitment already completed?

No Complete Records — Yet Verification Was Declared Complete?

SAAP MD Bharani acknowledged that complete records of certain local competitions conducted before the bifurcation of the State are not available with SAAP.

Officials said sports certificates would be digitised and made available online in future.

But future digitisation does not answer the discrepancies already identified in dates, names and results in the present recruitment.

When the Government’s own sports authority does not possess primary records, how reasonable was it to finalise public appointments merely on the basis of confirmations obtained from sports associations?

Why Not Publish All TET Records in One Candidate-Wise Table?

Officials disclosed the TET marks of several candidates, including Jampala Usha, Miriyala Gayatri Sai Sri, Pragada Kalyani and Chakrapani Reddy.

If those marks and categories genuinely satisfy the eligibility requirements for the posts concerned, that should settle those particular questions.

But instead of providing verbal explanations, why not release a single candidate-wise table containing:

• TET hall-ticket details
• TET marks memo
• Reservation category
• Post applied for
• Post selected for
• TET qualification relied upon for selection

Such disclosure would allow the facts to speak for themselves.

How Can the Government Give a Clean Chit While Investigations Are Still Pending?

Officials themselves said that the Judo certificate issue is before the High Court and that action would be taken based on the Vigilance report.

The Court has not yet conclusively determined the alleged irregularities.

At the same time, the disputed certificates have not received any final independent clean chit either.

So how can the Government declare that everything was conducted properly before the Vigilance investigation is complete?

Which carries greater evidentiary value — a political declaration made while inquiries are pending, or the final findings of an independent investigation?

Disclosure Is Not a Substitute for Investigation

Officials also failed to provide case-by-case answers to allegations concerning sale of certificates, involvement of middlemen, political interference and alleged links between selected candidates and influential persons.

Arguing that collusion could not have occurred because some information was disclosed publicly is not a logical substitute for investigation.

No independent investigation report examining money transactions, intermediaries and related allegations has yet been placed in the public domain.

What is required, therefore, is not a war of claims and counterclaims, but an impartial investigation based on financial transactions, call records and the complete history of issuance and verification of certificates.

What the Government Must Do

The Government cannot simply give itself a clean chit and declare that there was not a single flaw in Mega DSC when, by the officials’ own admission, several crucial matters remain under inquiry.

If the Government genuinely has nothing to hide, it should conduct an independent, candidate-wise audit of all 372 Sports Quota appointments and place the relevant records before the public.

It should disclose the TET memos, reservation categories, posts, sports certificates and official competition results relied upon for every selection.

It must also:

• Release the Revenue inquiry report on the BC-to-EWS certificate cases.
• Publish the original registers and results relating to the disputed Khammam and Vijayawada Judo competitions.
• Set a deadline for completion of the Vigilance inquiry and make the report public.
• Cancel appointments and initiate action against those responsible wherever ineligible or fraudulent selections are established.
• Transparently fill resultant vacancies so that genuinely eligible candidates are not denied their rightful opportunity.

Mega DSC concerns the careers and futures of hundreds of candidates.

What is required is not another press conference, but answers backed by records.

What is required is not a premature clean chit while investigations are still underway, but the complete truth placed before the people.