Karnataka MVI promotions under cloud over ‘certificate fraud’

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.

Bengaluru: Alleged misuse of educational and experience certificates in the Karnataka Transport Department’s Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) promotion process has triggered a complaint seeking official intervention.

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.

As per the complaint, 12 Motor Vehicle Inspector posts are available for serving employees under the in-service quota, with 46 staff members having applied.

The eligibility conditions reportedly stipulate that applicants must hold a regular diploma or engineering degree in mechanical or automobile engineering obtained before joining service. Employees who pursue the course after entering government service are said to be required to take three years of leave for their studies.

What the complaint says

The complaint alleges that some Group C and Group D employees have relied on evening-college certificates despite allegedly not meeting the conditions governing such education. It further claims that certain applicants submitted questionable experience certificates showing that they worked in private companies or factories.

According to the complainant, employment in a private industrial establishment is a requirement for pursuing the relevant evening-college courses. The applicants have also allegedly failed to provide departmental no-objection certificates to their colleges.

The representation raises additional questions about changes made to the promotion criteria. It alleges that the upper age limit was increased from 50 to 55 years and that the requirement of three years of service after obtaining a diploma was modified. The complainant claims these changes may have helped employees seeking promotion.

The complaint also alleges that large sums of money may have changed hands in connection with individual posts. However, the source report does not establish that any such payments occurred.

The allegations have prompted questions about the fairness of the promotion exercise and the role of officials responsible for enforcing eligibility rules. The authorities’ response, and whether a formal inquiry has been ordered, was not specified in the material available. The claims remain allegations pending verification.