Bengaluru: Responding to a request from his father, Mr H.D. Deve Gowda, former chief minister H.D. Kumaraswamy has decided to drop his plans of an indefinite hunger strike, which he was scheduled to start from Monday.
However, he has promised to continue his support for the protests against the government’s decision to reject the list of candidates selected by the Karnataka Public Service Commission for the post of Gazetted Probationers. Examinations for the same were held in 2011.
On Sunday morning, Mr. Kumaraswamy called on Mr Deve Gowda, who advised him not to take drastic action like a hunger strike. After the meeting, Mr Kumaraswamy went to Freedom Park, where 362 candidates, whose names were on the list that was shot down, were protesting.
Mr Kumaraswamy said that the chief minister Mr Siddaramiah was exhibiting an ‘escapist’ attitude. “Earlier, he promised to come for a public debate on the issue but is now running away from any debate. The government did not have the courtesy to even visit the protesting candidates,” he said.
Mr Kumaraswamy also said that Mr Siddaramaiah, who is turning a blind eye to corruption in his chamber in Vidhana Soudha (allegedly by office bearers of the Government Employees’ Union,) was in a hurry to take action in this case.
Mr Kumaraswamy also posed some questions to the government on the way the entire issue was handled.
“In the first place, the affected candidate Dr Maithri's interview was completed on May 10, 2013 and the results were announced on May 11. The entire interview process of the batch was completed on May 27. Why did she choose to remain silent for 10 days after her results? Second, there were six more candidates, who scored more than 1000 marks in the main examinations and got less marks than Dr Maithri. These candidates did not complain against the system. Is the government aware of these facts?''
He continued, “Based on Dr Maithri's complaint, the Advocate General gave his opinion to the government. Did the AG take the liberty of giving an opinion without asking the government for permission? Will the AG giving his opinion nine months prior to KPSC submitting its list raise suspicion that it was a premeditated plan by the government?''
He went on, “The CID, in its report, has said that it came to a conclusion based on 'Oral Documentary Evidence'. What is Oral Documentary Evidence? Why was there such a hurry to reject the list, while the issue is still pending in Court? If the Court ruling comes in favor of the selected candidates, what will the government's stand be?''
Another question raised by him: Is Mrs. Mangala Sridhar the only guilty member in the KPSC panel? What action is being taken against its other members? Now, after the government conducts fresh examinations, what if another candidate alleges corruption, what action will the government take?
