In the wake of allegations levelled by aspirants of high-level government jobs against H N Krishna, the former chairperson of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC), it has come to light that even members who worked with him held him wholly responsible for the large-scale irregularities in the selection of gazetted probationers.

The then KPSC members – D Dasaiah, Dr H S Patil, Lilian Xavier, Venkataswamy and Dr Mohammed Ali Khan – who initially defended Krishna, in their statements to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) have held him responsible for the irregularities. They have stated that all the manipulations done by them were at the behest of Krishna.

Dasaiah, in his statement dated November 23, 2011, (a copy of which is available with Deccan Herald), has said that Krishna had manipulated the marks of the candidates all by himself and that he (Dasaiah) had no role in it.

Admitting that there were large-scale irregularities, he said some students were favoured at the cost of merit students. In one such case, Hanumanthegowda (register no 104648) attended a personality test under 3A category. Having scored 1,147 marks, he would have been appointed assistant commissioner, but Krishna changed his category to general merit, and as a result, he was appointed assistant controller.

In another instance, H G Prabhakar (415685) had scored 1,071 marks and sought appointment under category 3A. Krishna changed his category from 3A to general merit. Had he been considered under category 3A, he would have been deputy commissioner of police. The post, instead, was given to another candidate, A N Prakash Gowda, who had scored 1,067 marks.

‘Unilateral decision’

Dasaiah said such irregularities were found in the appointments made during 1998, 1999 and 2004. Stating that he had no role in it, he said Krishna, while selecting some candidates, had not brought things to the notice of other members and had taken decisions unilaterally.

The statements obtained from the CID by petitioner Khaleel Ahmed and others recently have been placed before the High Court.

Dr H S Patil, another KPSC member, in his statement has said that the marks of the candidates were manipulated by him in all the examinations. Accordingly, the marks of Guruprasad H L (26054) in 1998 was altered from 140 to 145 at the behest of Krishna, while the marks of another candidate, Sharada C Kolhar, was altered by him from 150 to 152.

In a 1999 interview, the selection marks of Arati (657905) were altered from 125 to 150. In the 2004 examinations, the marks of Shalini (114198) were altered from 70 to 140. In the statement signed before Prasad T L, DIG CID, and B A Padmanayan, DGP, CID, Patil has said that the marks of Roopa R (415941) were altered from 75 to 150, and that of Narendra S B (119015) from 100 to 150 in 2004. He has stated that all these manipulations had been done at the behest of Krishna.

Another member, Lilian Xavier (November 23, 2011), has said that she had altered the marks of 14 candidates in 1998, 1999 and 2004. While most of them were done at the instance of Krishna, she attributed some to ‘oversight.’

Accordingly, the marks of  Manjunath and Sangapur were altered in 1998 from 50 to 150; in 1999, the marks of Amarnath T and Devraj D were altered for the same reason, and it was the same in the case of Prabhuraj and Mahadeva Naik in 2004.

According to Dr Mohammed Ali Khan’s submission to the CID, the moderation and scaling techniques adopted by the KPSC were not as per the instructions of the court.