Bengaluru: Allegations of irregularities involving educational qualifications and experience certificates in the Karnataka Transport Department’s Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) promotion process have prompted a social activist to seek intervention from senior state authorities.
Social activist Parashurama Neel Nayak has submitted a representation, along with supporting documents, to the Governor, the state Chief Secretary and the Transport Commissioner, alleging violations of recruitment and promotion rules.
The complaint raises questions about the eligibility of certain applicants, the validity of educational and work experience certificates, and changes allegedly made to the promotion criteria. The allegations have not been independently established, and details of any official inquiry were not available in the material provided.
12 MVI posts attract 46 applicants
According to the representation, 12 Motor Vehicle Inspector posts are available for serving employees under the in-service quota, while 46 staff members have applied for promotion.
The complaint states that applicants must meet prescribed educational and service conditions to qualify for consideration. These reportedly include holding a regular diploma or engineering degree in mechanical or automobile engineering obtained before entering government service.
It further states that employees who pursue the relevant qualification after joining government service are required to take three years of leave for their studies.
The complainant has alleged that some applicants may not have complied with these conditions, raising concerns about whether the eligibility requirements have been applied uniformly to all candidates.
The allegations call for verification of the applicants’ educational records and service histories before the promotion process is finalised.
Evening-college certificates questioned
The representation alleges that some Group C and Group D employees have relied on certificates obtained through evening-college courses despite questions over whether they met the applicable eligibility requirements.
According to the complaint, employment in a private industrial establishment is a prerequisite for pursuing the relevant evening-college courses. It further alleges that some applicants submitted questionable experience certificates claiming employment with private companies or factories.
The complainant has also raised concerns that certain employees may not have obtained the required departmental no-objection certificates before enrolling in the courses.
These claims raise questions about the authenticity of the documents submitted and whether the applicants fulfilled the conditions governing their education and professional experience.
Verification of the certificates, employment records, college admission requirements and departmental permissions would be necessary to establish whether any rules were violated.
Changes to promotion criteria under scrutiny
The representation also questions changes allegedly made to the eligibility criteria for promotion.
According to the complainant, the upper age limit was increased from 50 to 55 years. The complaint further alleges that the requirement of completing three years of service after obtaining a diploma was modified.
Nayak has questioned whether these changes affected the eligibility of applicants or provided an advantage to particular employees seeking promotion.
The circumstances surrounding the changes, including the orders under which they were introduced and their applicability to the current promotion process, would need to be examined to determine whether the rules were followed.
The complaint calls for scrutiny of the relevant government orders and departmental records to establish whether the revised criteria were authorised and applied consistently.
Complaint raises allegations of possible payments
The representation also alleges that substantial sums of money may have changed hands in connection with individual promotion posts.
However, the material provided does not establish that any payments were made or identify verified evidence of financial transactions linked to the promotion process. The allegation therefore remains unsubstantiated.
Any investigation into this aspect would require supporting evidence and verification by the competent authorities.
Demand for official intervention
By approaching the Governor, the Chief Secretary and the Transport Commissioner, the complainant has sought intervention over the alleged irregularities in the promotion process.
The issues raised concern the verification of educational qualifications, the validity of experience certificates, compliance with departmental procedures and the changes allegedly made to the eligibility criteria.
The allegations, if substantiated, could raise questions about the fairness and transparency of the promotion exercise. However, no conclusion can be drawn about individual applicants without examining the relevant records and giving the parties concerned an opportunity to respond.
The material available does not specify whether the Transport Department has ordered a formal inquiry or issued a response to the representation.
The matter now hinges on whether the authorities examine the supporting documents, verify the applicants’ eligibility and clarify the rules governing the promotions. Until the allegations are investigated, the claims of certificate fraud and other irregularities remain unverified.