The Central Bureau of Investigation has booked four persons, including two retired Major Generals, who while serving in various capacities with the Survey Training Institute (STI) in Hyderabad allegedly manipulated Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) results in 2002 to the benefit of 44 candidates.
Among those named by the agency are retired Major Generals M.V. Bhat, who was then a Brigadier and posted as STI Director; and K.R.M.K. Balaji Rao, who was also a Brigadier and the then Deputy Surveyor General.
The then Deputy Director, J.K. Rath, and Establishment and Accounts Officer, R. Rama Singh, of the STI have also been arraigned. The case has been made out following an inquiry initiated in October 2018, into a complaint forwarded by the Ministry of Science & Technology.
The Department of Science & Technology had earlier received complaints from the Survey of India employees alleging malpractices in the compilation of marks in the answer sheets of the LDCE. The examination was held in October 2002 for promotion of Group “D” employees to Group “C” (Topographical Trades).
There were 208 vacancies, which were later reduced to 74. In all, 384 candidates applied and 298 of them appeared in the examination.
According to the CBI, the inquiry revealed that in August 2002 the STI had set up a board of four officers: then Brig. Bhat as Chairman, Brig. Rao (Member Secretary), Mr. Rath, Deputy Director and STI (Member), and Mr. Singh, for conducting the examination.
The responsibility for setting the papers was with the Chairman, while evaluation of answer sheets was to be done by the Chairman or the board members. The examination was held at 10 centres across India and answer sheets were evaluated by board members in Hyderabad. The marks were also compiled by the board, after which 74 employees were promoted from Group “D” to “C”.
The CBI alleged that of these employees, 44 were selected wrongly on the basis of manipulated mark sheets that were prepared by the examination board.
According to the agency, while preparing mark sheets, the board altered the marks without noting down the actuals secured by the candidates. The compilation of marks was done in the handwriting of the then Director, which was signed by him and other board members, it alleged.
