Published Aug 28, 2026 | 12:49 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 28, 2026 | 12:49 PM
Kumaraswamy said that Kharge bore responsibility for decisions taken by his department.
Synopsis: Union Minister and JD(S) leader HD Kumaraswamy has accused the Karnataka government of allowing appointments to proceed despite alleged irregularities and ongoing scrutiny in the KPSC’s recruitment of Assistant Executive Engineers. He has demanded the resignation of Priyank Kharge, who held the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj portfolio at the time, and called for a higher-level probe into the matter.
Union Minister and JD(S) leader HD Kumaraswamy on Friday, 28 August accused the Karnataka government of overlooking alleged irregularities in the recruitment of Assistant Executive Engineers (AEE), Grade-I, under the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department through the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC).
Addressing a press conference at JP Bhavan, in Bengaluru, Kumaraswamy alleged that concerns over manipulation of OMR sheets, missing CCTV footage and procedural violations had been raised within the KPSC before the final selection process was completed, but appointments were nevertheless allowed to proceed.
He demanded the resignation of Home Minister Priyank Kharge, who held the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj portfolio at the time, and sought a higher-level investigation into the alleged irregularities surrounding KPSC recruitments.
The alleged irregularities date back to September 2023, when the KPSC published the provisional selection list for the AEE recruitment. A subsequent complaint questioned the selection of several candidates and sought verification of their OMR answer sheets, carbon copies and CCTV footage from examination centres.
Kumaraswamy alleged that the government allowed appointments despite an ongoing internal scrutiny into the suspected irregularities.
Kumaraswamy said the complaint was discussed at several meetings of the Commission and that officials were directed to examine the relevant records. He alleged that CCTV footage relating to some candidates was unavailable and that discrepancies emerged during scrutiny, following which a three-member subcommittee was constituted.
He further alleged that the subcommittee complained of non-cooperation from the then KPSC Secretary and said it could not proceed unless the Commission’s directions were implemented.
Kumaraswamy questioned how the final selection list was processed while this scrutiny was still underway.
Citing correspondence within the Commission, he claimed that a letter dated 31 January 2024, from the KPSC chairperson to the secretary permitted publication of the final selection list only “subject to the decision of the subcommittee”.
However, Kumaraswamy alleged that the secretary treated the communication as permission to proceed and forwarded the final selection list to the government without obtaining the Commission’s final approval.
“The secretary acted in haste and forwarded the final selection list to the government for further action without getting approval of the Commission,” Kumaraswamy said.
He claimed that the Commission subsequently wrote to the Chief Secretary objecting to the manner in which the list had been forwarded. Members of the subcommittee also said the selection list had been sent before they completed their examination, he alleged.
Kumaraswamy said the subcommittee continued its scrutiny in March 2024, examining OMR answer sheets, candidates’ carbon copies and other examination records. Of the 24 candidates called as part of the exercise, 20 appeared before the committee while four did not, he claimed.
The committee subsequently decided that the examination material required scientific examination, he said. OMR sheets, available carbon copies and related records were later sent in sealed covers to the Forensic Science Laboratory, while CCTV footage was also examined.
Kumaraswamy alleged that the scrutiny raised questions about markings on OMR sheets, including the use of different ink colours, and argued that the government should have halted the appointment process until the allegations were fully investigated.
“You had all these reports before you. What did you do with those reports?” Kumaraswamy asked.
Also Read: Two govt teachers in Yadgir suspended nine months after taking part in RSS procession
Kumaraswamy argued that, even if Kharge was not directly involved in conducting the examination, the Minister bore responsibility for decisions taken by the department after the alleged irregularities were brought to its notice.
“Whether or not he was directly involved, it was his responsibility. Didn’t he know about all this when the appointments were made? Shouldn’t he have stopped them?” Kumaraswamy said.
He questioned why appointments were allowed to proceed when the department was aware that the recruitment process was under scrutiny.
“Even after you knew that all these alleged irregularities had taken place, why did you give the appointments in such haste?” Kumaraswamy asked.
Kumaraswamy also referred to proceedings before the Karnataka High Court, citing an oral order dated 19 March 2025, in which counsel for the petitioners had sought the transfer of the investigation to the CBI.
He then demanded Priyank Kharge’s resignation, saying that “the Minister had to resign immediately”.
According to the portion of the order cited by Kumaraswamy, the court had put the parties on notice that it might explore the possibility of entrusting the investigation to the CBI and had asked the agency’s standing counsel to remain available during further proceedings.
Also Read: National Law School cancels convocation for 2026 grads due to unspecified circumstances
Kumaraswamy questioned whether previous committee and CID investigations into controversies surrounding the KPSC had been sufficient to restore confidence in the recruitment system and called for a higher-level probe.
He also connected the AEE issue to the more recent controversy surrounding the recruitment of veterinary officers, referring to allegations that money running into tens of lakhs of rupees had been demanded from candidates in return for selection.
Kumaraswamy cited reports of an alleged demand of around ₹80 lakh, including ₹40 lakh as an advance, to argue that the AEE allegations could not be viewed in isolation from wider concerns surrounding recruitment through the KPSC.
He also attacked the government over former KPSC Controller of Examinations Gyanendra Kumar Gangwar and alleged that repeated recruitment controversies had damaged the Commission’s credibility.
He accused the government of allowing officials under government scrutiny to leave the State, referring to a recent controversy in which an IAS officer could not be contacted.
Kumaraswamy questioned the process through which KPSC members are appointed and alleged that political and caste considerations had weakened the institution.
Referring to the State government’s promise to fill around 75,000 to 76,000 vacancies, Kumaraswamy questioned how unemployed youth could have confidence in the recruitment system while allegations of irregularities continued to surface.
“Why do these complaints keep arising against KPSC? This has been happening in Karnataka for the last 20 years,” Kumaraswamy said.
