Avinash Azad
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Jammu, has initiated a review into allegations pertaining to recruitment and appointments under the sports quota in Jammu and Kashmir, including the SO 12 provisional merit list, recognition of sports disciplines, and the allocation of benefits to sportspersons.
According to sources ACB Jammu, has asked the Secretary, J&K Sports Council, to examine the allegations raised in a complaint and submit a factual report along with relevant records and comments for further consideration.
The allegations raise concerns regarding the extent to which merit was duly considered in the selection process, with claims of preferential treatment to candidates associated with certain sports disciplines. The complaint also points to a disproportionate representation of candidates from select disciplines in merit lists, raising questions about fairness and equal opportunity.
The communication further refers to allegations concerning the issuance and utilisation of sports certificates, including claims that certificates in certain disciplines were issued on a paid basis or without adequate competitive verification, potentially enabling financially advantaged candidates to secure benefits without genuine sporting merit.
Another issue highlighted is the reportedly high number of beneficiaries from sports disciplines introduced or recognised in recent years, with appointments made within a short span. The complaint questions whether policy amendments and selection criteria were applied uniformly and in a transparent manner.
The ACB has also sought clarification regarding the administrative classification of Dragon Boat and Kayaking as separate disciplines, noting the need for examination in the absence of any officially notified policy or statutory order merging the two.
Further concerns have been raised regarding the evaluation of international, national, and other competitive events, including eligibility and age criteria. The complaint alleges that, in certain cases, candidates who were underage at the time of participation were subsequently granted benefits, potentially to the detriment of senior sportspersons with longer competitive experience. The development assumes significance as aspirants and sportspersons had staged protests alleging that favouritism and nepotism were being allowed to override merit in recruitment and related benefits.
