Petition dt 17th March

To
The Hon’ble Chairman,
The Union Public Service Commission,
New Delhi.

Respected Sir,

Sub:- Irregularities in the recruitments made by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission- Reg.

Encl:- 1. Judgment copy of the APIC, dated 23-01-2010
2. Marks copies of the information furnished under the RTI Act by the APPSC.

Sir, the recruitments made by the APPSC have almost always been mired in controversies. In order to get to know the truth, I had, on the 8th of Dec’ 2008, filed an RTI application with the PIO, APPSC seeking details, viz., Name, community, zone, marks obtained in written and interview by all the candidates who attended the interviews However, there was no correspondence from the PIO. My appeal before the First Appellate Authority of the APPSC dated 17th January 2009 also met the same fate.

Sir, their reluctance to divulge the information prompted me to approach the Hon’ble SCIC, APIC. The Hon’ble SCIC was kind enough to direct the APPSC to divulge the information that I had sought.

Sir, due to the sheer volume of the information provided to me by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, I desisted myself from mailing the entire set to you. However, given an opportunity, I shall be privileged to present the information for your kind perusal and necessary action.

Sir, one look at the marks awarded in the interviews to the candidates would reveal that there are wide spread disparities as to the marks scored in the written and in the interviews. Some who had top scored in the written secured abysmally low marks in the interview, while some who secured less marks in the written exam scored heavily in the interviews.

Sir, it was widely believed that some Members of the APPSC are hostile (by way of awarding lesser marks) towards candidates belonging to the Reserved Categories, thereby stifling their chance of making it in the Open competition. Here, I would like to quote certain instances, Sir. This data pertains to 312 plum posts, Viz., Deputy Collectors, DSP, CTO, RTO, etc of the Group-1 examination held under the notification 21/2003:

Out of the 24 who scored less than 40 marks out of 90, 14 belong to the BCs (i.e. 58%) and out of the 14, 7 belong to BC-D Least marks were awarded to SC candidates, while there are no Reddys who secured under 40.

But most striking is the case of Mr.Shiva Lingaiah Chettipally (BC-B) bearing HT No.12203120. He got a top score of 687 in the written exam, but got only 32 in the interview taking his tally to 719 and had to be content with 4th overall.

Similarly, Mr.Chandra Shekar Goud (BC-B) bearing HT No.12232100 secured 678 marks in the written (2nd highest ) but was awarded only 28 in the interview taking to total to 706. He missed the chance of becoming a Deputy Collector (DC) by 1 mark

Similarly, Ms. Haritha Mundrathi (BC-A) who secured the highest written score (613) among the women Deputy Collectors. However, only 21 marks were awarded to her and she lost the opportunity of becoming a DC in the open category and had to claim reservation.

Similarly,Mr.Gangadhar Reddy (BC-D) bearing HT.No 10601169 scored 649 but was awarded only 21 in the interview. Someone who could have made it into DC in open competition had to settle for DSP.

Almost similar is the case of Mr.Narasimha Rao Ch (SC) bearing HTNo.10703131 who got a decent score of 598 but was awarded the least of all just 13 marks in the interview.and had to settle for Assistant Audit Officer., though people who had scored lesser marks than him in the written got Dy.SP and that too in open competition.

Another incident relates to Mr.Samayjan Rao Ch(SC) bearing HT No.10606097 who secured 616 marks in written, i.e. joint 3rd highest among all the candidates selected for DSP post but only 13.5 in the interview. The combined tally now placed him on 21st position and he had to settle for the post of DSP under reservation quota

Hemantha Naga Raju (BC-A) and Meera Prasad E (BC-B)---- candidates who got lesser marks (in written) than them got selected as DSPs in open competition, while they had to claim reservation to get selected as an AES and RTO resply.

Rajeshwara Rao K (BC-D) HT No.10300512 scored 628 marks and was in the reckoning for Deputy Collector . However, he was awarded only 21 in the interview and the tally of 649 was good enough only for DSP Jails.

Srinivasa Rao T (BC-D) HT No.10702583 got 611 marks in written but 46 in interview and the total of 660 was just 10 marks short of being selected as a DSP in the open competition.

Yadagiri Rao N (BC-D) HT No.12257674 got 621 and 36 and a total of 657, candidates who scored less than him had become Dy. Collectors, CTOs, RTOs and DSPs in Open Competition, while he had to settle for Municipal Commissioner Grade-II.

Revathi Dedeepya M(BC-D) 12203641 got 601 and 32 and a total of 633, while some who scored less than her had become Dy. Collectors she had to contend with AAO (Local Fund)


Sir, you would be aware that the UPSC and other Public Service Commissions in India hardly, if ever, award more than 80% in the interviews to any candidate. It was shocking to note that the average marks of the selected candidates belonging to a particular community was in itself more than 80%, i.e. 73 out of 90 marks.

That’s not all Madam, an unbelievably high 138 candidates out of 550 (312 plum Group- 1 posts plus 238 MPDO posts) were awarded marks equal to or more than 80% in the interviews, i.e. 72 or more out of 90. Further, 36 candidates were awarded marks in excess of a staggering 90% with the highest being 88 out of 90, i.e., an unprecedented 98%.

The benevolence on the part of the APPSC is such that even the deeds of Daana Veera Soora Karna would pale in comparison! Or is there something more to it than that meets the eye?!


Sir, to satisfy yourself on the scale of irregularities , I humbly request you to check with the UPSC on the number of instances (in the past 5 years, 10 years or any such duration of time that you deem fit) wherein they had awarded interview marks in excess of 80%... let alone 90%. I am sure the figure arrived at would be a fraction of those awarded 80% or more in just one exam by the APPSC. That would present before you the gravity of the irregularities committed.

It is incomprehensible to note that such a highly educated and qualified person/s could’ve succumbed to the allure of nepotism/ favouritism (for whatever considerations).
Sir, such undue favours shown to a particular community has played a cruel joke on the hopes and aspirations of the candidates. The interview has been turned into a charade thereby making a mockery of the recruitment procedure.

Power, prestige and perks and equally importantly, the belief in the sense of ‘fair-play’ in recruitment is what attracts the bright students towards the Public Services. Such instances of nepotism on the one hand and discrimination on the other, strike at the roots of that belief and can have a devastating effect on the aspirants’ psyche and outlook towards the system as a whole.

On the brighter side, Sir, we note with great pleasure that the UPSC has always stood firm with it’s head above water. The professional way that the UPSC handles itself and conducts the exams, in a time bound manner, without any scope for allegations, etc is exemplary. Here’s hoping that the UPSC scales greater heights under your stewardship.

Having said that, Sir, in the interest of absolute transparency, I believe that it would be judicious and be widely appreciated if you could initiate the process of kindly disclosing the official keys to the General Studies and Optional subject question papers for the Civil Services Preliminary Test and all other Preliminary exams conducted by your esteemed Commission.

Thanking you Sir,

Yours faithfully,


(Sunand P)