If one wants to assess the moral backbone of a state, there is one question that must be answered: Does the son of a poor farmer get an equal opportunity when he sits for the same examination as the son of a powerful political leader? Who ultimately finds a place in the final selection list? The answers to these questions can be found through the window of the recruiting agency, and it is there that the foundations of transparency and integrity in governance become visible. These answers do not merely satisfy an academic curiosity; they reveal the line between justice and injustice, a line that determines whether democracy truly respects merit or merely proximity, nepotism and money. Now compare the two periods of governance: the Akhilesh Yadav government from 2012 to 2017 and the Yogi Adityanath government since 2017. It becomes evident that Uttar Pradesh has moved away from a system nurtured under the shadow of parchi-kharchi and restored to merit the right to determine its own destiny.
Recruitment In Uttar Pradesh: Fair Hiring VS Parchi-Kharchi Ka Khel - Harishankar Mishra
Uttar Pradesh shifted from nepotism and corruption in recruitment under Akhilesh Yadav to a merit-based, transparent system with strong anti-cheating measures under Yogi Adityanath since 2017, says Harishankar Mishra.
The biggest tragedy of the Akhilesh Yadav tenure was that talent was often overshadowed by recommendations. The interview system, which was theoretically designed to assess a candidate’s personality and suitability, became, in practice, a tool to favour preferred candidates by awarding arbitrary marks. Even for Group C and Group D posts, where no particularly complex administrative judgement was required, interview marks acquired the power to completely overturn the merit list. This was no small matter. It was an injustice to the young person who had spent months studying and secured good marks in the examination, only to find that all his hard work became meaningless the moment he entered the interview room.
The blow dealt to the credibility of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission nearly a decade ago remains a dark chapter in its history. Controversies surrounding the three-tier reservation policy, repeated reports of question-paper leaks and allegations of manipulation of OMR sheets together turned the streets of Prayagraj into the centre of student protests. During the tenure of Anil Yadav as chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, candidates faced widespread allegations of arbitrary treatment. When thousands of young people are forced to take to the streets against the state’s most prestigious recruitment commission, it is a clear indication that faith in the system has broken down. In a large number of recruitments, the intervention of the High Court and even the Central Bureau of Investigation became necessary. From the recruitment of 72,825 trainee teachers to police constable recruitment, dozens of recruitment processes remained entangled in litigation for years. It was not politicians or officials who paid the price for this uncertainty, but millions of candidates whose eligibility periods expired and whose dreams were sacrificed to prolonged uncertainty.
In sharp contrast, after assuming power in 2017, the Yogi Adityanath government made a principle the cornerstone of its recruitment policy that can be summed up in three words: no discrimination, no recommendation, only merit. Concrete policy measures began to emerge in recruitment. The biggest and most decisive step was the complete abolition of the interview system for Group C and Group D posts. By eliminating from the root a system that had for years provided scope for corruption and favouritism, the government sent a clear message that selection would now be based solely on marks obtained in the written examination, not caste influence, recommendation or identity politics.
To institutionalise transparency, the government made extensive use of technology. Biometric verification of candidates, live CCTV surveillance at examination centres, digital coding of question papers and computerised scanning of OMR sheets have collectively created a barrier that makes it far more difficult for cheating mafias and solver gangs to manipulate examinations. Wherever there has been an audacious attempt to challenge even this technological barrier, the government has not hesitated to invoke the law. Under the Uttar Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, provisions such as the Gangsters Act, property attachment and heavy financial penalties of up to ₹1 crore have been applied against those involved in question-paper leaks. The message has been clear: anyone who plays with the future of young people will not be allowed to escape the law.
The world after recruitment processes of promotion and transfers has also been subjected to the same test of transparency. Earlier, complaints of manipulation in annual confidential reports and a culture of recommendations were common. Under the Yogi government, the entire process has been digitised through the Manav Sampada Portal. Now, the promotion of an officer or employee is linked to documented performance rather than a recommendation made in some administrative corridor. This is not a minor change; it represents a transformation in the DNA of administrative culture. The figures bear testimony to this change. In recent years, millions of young people have received appointment letters in the police department, basic and secondary education, medical and health services and other subordinate services without financial transactions or recommendations, but solely on the basis of merit. For millions of families, this is a new experience, especially for those who had come to believe that securing a government job required 'connections' more than qualifications.
Making the system completely foolproof is a continuous process, not a one-time exercise. That process is ongoing. The difference is that incidents that once became symbols of the system’s permanent weaknesses are now leading to strict legal action and even stronger security measures. A government that learns from its mistakes and moves towards improvement is far better than one that remains embroiled in controversies while preserving the status quo.
This debate is not merely a comparison between two governments; it is a test of how the success of governance should be measured in a democracy. Should it be measured by promises made from election platforms or by concrete policy measures that transform the lives of ordinary candidates? For millions of young people in Uttar Pradesh, digital surveillance and stringent anti-cheating laws are not merely administrative reforms. They represent the restoration of a trust that had once been broken. And when a government demonstrates the courage to rebuild that lost trust among its youth, it lays the foundation for morality, integrity, transparency and equal opportunity for all.
About the Author: Harishankar Mishra is a Senior Journalist. With decades of experience in mainstream media, his reporting focuses on political analysis, current affairs, and socio-economic issues.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the publisher. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, the publisher is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information.