To
The State Public Information Officer,
The APPSC, Hyderabad.
Sir,
Sub:- Application under the RTI Act, 2005 seeking certain information regarding recruitments made to some services by the APPSC.- Reg
Encl: 1. DD for Rs. 10/- drawn in favour of The Accounts Officer, APPSC.
2. DD for Rs. 50/- drawn in favour of The Accounts Officer, APPSC.
3. Judgment copy of the Hon’ble SCIC, APIC dt: 23-01-2010.
I request the SPIO, APPSC to provide me the following information:
1) Full Names of the selected candidates,
2) Hall Ticket Number of the selected candidates,
3) The Community to which they belong to,
4) Marks secured by the selected candidates in the written examination,
5) Marks awarded in the interview to the selected candidates,
6) Median of interview marks for each community indicated separately for the following recruitments made by the APPSC:
I. FOREST RANGE OFFICERS UNDER NOTIFICATION No. 15/ 2004. (73 posts)
II. FOREST RANGE OFFICERS UNDER NOTIFICATION No. 40/ 2007.(20 posts)
III. GROUP-I SERVICES DIRECT RECRUITMENT (General) UNDER NOTIFICATION NO. 31/2007 (197 posts)
IV. RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF DEPUTY EDUCATIONAL OFFICERS/ GAZETTED HEAD MASTER GRADE-I IN A.P. STATE EDUCATIONAL SERVICE NOTIFICATION NO. 20/2006 & SUPPL NOTFN. NO. 15/2007. (41 posts)
V. GROUP- II SERVICES (General Recruitment) EXECUTIVE POSTS under NOTIFICATION NO.32/2007. (578 executive posts)
VI. ASST. MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTORS UNDER NOTIFICATION No. 13/ 2004. (34 posts)
VII. RECRUITMENT FOR THE POST OF LECTURERS IN DEGREE COLLEGES (GR & LR) vide NOTIFICATION NO. 23/2006 (39 posts)
The total number of candidates whose information is sought comes to around 980. I believe it wouldn’t be out of place to remind that the SPIO, APPSC had furnished, to me, information pertaining to over 1160 candidates under Group-I Notification No. 21/ 2003 and Group-II Notification No.10/ 2004. Given the fact that the information requested now pertains to less number of candidates, I hope that the SPIO doesn’t try to take recourse to baseless excuses like… “involves substantial diversion of men and material, etc.”
In addition to that, given the fact that the format that I had suggested roughly corresponds to the format in which the APPSC, on the 26th of March 2010, presented to the media, information pertaining to the Group-II Notification No. 10/ 2004, I hope that the information requested for would be supplied to me in the format suggested above and in the form of a Compact Disc (CD), the fee for which is enclosed, within the stipulated thirty (30) days.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(Sunand P)
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Petition dt 10-04-10
To
Shri Sharad Yadav ji, M.P.,
Lok Sabha, N. Delhi.
Respected Sir,
Sub:- Gross irregularities in the Group-I and Group-II recruitment by the APPSC- request to raise this issue in the Parliament and before the President of India- reg.
Encl:- 1. Leader Page Article written by you and published by The Hindu on 07/07/2006.
2. Judgment copy of the SCIC, APIC dt: 23-01-2010.
3. Newspaper article of The Hindu dated 28-03-10.
4. Abysmally low marks in Group-I interviews.
5. Shockingly low marks in Group-II interviews.
Sir, quite unfortunately, the following words that you had written in the leader page article seem to have come in the case of recruitments made by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in the year 2006. The following excerpts have been taken from your article Sir :
“With some exceptions, they have abused their position to denigrate the merit of the people who have been given the constitutional right of reservation — so that privileges enjoyed by some people under the caste system are de-reserved.
People controlling the UPSC and DoPT are so strongly motivated against the candidates of reserved categories that they can go to any extent in their adventure to block the entry of reserved categories in the civil services.
If we analyse the data on successful ST and SC candidates, we discover they have done better in the written test, where the examiner does not know their caste. In the interviews they have been given fewer
marks because people in the interview board know their caste.
An analysis of the results reveals a big gap between the average interview marks given to reserved category candidates and non-reserved category candidates. One successful candidate of the 1996 civil service examinations, who was denied a job, has calculated these averages on the basis of information available with him. Since he fought for his job in the Supreme Court and won, the data he offers can be relied upon in the absence of authoritative data provided by the UPSC. According to this candidate, the average interview mark in the non-reserved category is around 200, while the average for reserved categories candidates is 140.
My information is that thus far 390 successful candidates have been denied jobs in the civil services. Some of them, who have had resources thanks to being in other services, have challenged the DoPT successfully. But what about those who have not moved the courts? Why can't the courts take suo motu notice of such gross denial of justice?”
Sir, I’m mailing you with a strong belief that you would diligently take up this issue and see to it that justice is done and action is taken against the guilty. Sir, if you don’t I am afraid nobody will!
Sir, I, humbly request you to highlight the gross and blatant injustice done, by the APPSC, to the BCs, SCs, STs, and also the “un-influential” among the OCs in the interviews conducted for Group-I and Group-II posts.
Sir, plum posts like the Deputy Collector, Dy. SP, CTO, RTO, Municipal Commissioner, etc constitute Group-I and posts like Dy. Tehsildar, ACTO, etc are part of the Group-II services. Naturally, the stakes are very high ! The shameful nepotism on display is revolting to say the least. The average interview marks of the selected candidates of a particular “influential” community, in both Group-I and Group-II, is over 80% of the interview marks!
However, when it comes to abysmally low marks in the interviews, BCs, SCs, STs, form the overwhelming majority. This despite scoring very good marks in the written. To quote a few examples from Group-I:
Kindly refer to encl 4 Sir. The statistics pertain to candidates who got selected to plum posts. Out of the 24 who scored less than 40 marks out of 90, 14 belong to the BCs (i.e. 58%). Least marks (13 out of 90) were awarded to SC candidates.
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) HT No. 12232473 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. Mr. Samay happens to be an IIT alumnus and an ex-software engineer at the Infosys.
In the case of Mr. Hemantha Naga Raju (BC-A) HT. No. 10704284 and Mr. Meera Prasad E (BC-B),HT No. 10500554 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr.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.
Ms.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)
However, when it comes to Reddy candidates who got selected to plum posts of DC, DSP, CTO, Municipal Commissioner, Dy. Registrar Co-op Societies, AAO, ATO, etc, the lowest marks that they secured was as high as 42 as seen from the interview marks shown below :
Name of the candidate HT No. Marks Obtained Total
(written) (int)
900 90 990
1.Prabhakar Reddy 11004313 634 75 709
2.Venkata Ramana Reddy 11209318 635 85 720
3.Ravi Kiran Reddy M 11005332 570 82 652
4.Narayana Reddy 12241065 589 82 671
5.Srinivasa Reddy S 11010189 586 75 661
6.Srikanth Reddy D 12215225 610 54 664
7.Chandra Shekar Reddy 12239093 582 84 666
8.Venugopal Reddy 12216921 657 73 732
9.Vinay Krishna Reddy 12241876 666 55 721
10.Arvind Reddy 11400057 622 70 692
11.Jitender Reddy 12202403 602 83 685
12.Sudhakar Reddy 20929025 616 70 686
13.Raghunadha Reddy 20929096 602 78 680
14.Madhusudhan Reddy G 20928614 588 87 675
15.Upender Reddy 12203655 600 68 668
16.Ravinder Reddy 12214830 601 62 663
17.Ramsunder Reddy 12215715 583 81 664
18.Ram Mohan Reddy 11100040 595 44 639
19.Srinivasa Reddy 11010189 587 75 661
20.Anil Kumar Reddy 11206334 594 76 670
21.Ravi Shankar Reddy 11104297 595 76 671
22.Koti Reddy Nandyala 12203647 610 85 695
23.Panasa Reddy T 12233569 609 65 674
24.Swapnadevi Reddy 11103570 585 75 660
25.Shanmukha Reddy 11200973 566 74.5 640.5
26.Venumadhava Reddy 11507758 565 81.5 646.5
27.Venkata Narasimha Reddy 12234485 588 52 640
28.Vani Reddy G 12237889 553 82 635
29.Ravindra Reddy 20503965 566 68 634
30.Sankara Narayana Reddy 20801492 591 42 633
31.Prabhakar Reddy J 12230941 577 74.5 651.5
32.Nageshwara Reddy K 20921806 564 87 651
33.Sarveshwar Reddy 11903910 580 74 654
34.Ragha Swathi Reddy 12219893 535 88 623
35.Sreenivasulu Kancham Reddy 10901371 586 75 661
36.Punna Chandra Reddy 20920851 384 74 458
37.Madhavi Latha Kumari Reddy 12233721 606 77 683
38.Gauthami Reddy Midde 11004536 588 85 673
39.Prashanthi Reddy Puppala 20103791 600 71 671
40.Hymavathi Reddy Katta 12216084 613 56 669 ________________
2921.5
The highest marks obtained in the Group-I interviews was an astonishing 88 out of 90,(i.e. 98%) to Ms. Ragha Swathi Reddy {HT. No.12219893}. The average interview mark scored by a Reddy candidate was 2921.5/ 40 = 73. Thus, the average mark scored by them is in itself more than 80% of the interview marks ! Whereas, the average interview marks for other OCs was 64, for the SCs and the BCs it was 60 and for STs it was a measly 53.
Sir, please refer to encl 5. In the case of Group-II services Sir, out of those who scored more than 250 out of 450 in the written (i.e. more than 55% ), 73 candidates were awarded 25 marks or less out of 50 in the interviews… out of the 73 candidates, 41 (56%) are BCs, 15 SCs, 10 STs. The least marks awarded in the interview was 6 out of 50 (12%) to :
Ms. Naga Mani A (BC-A) bearing HT No. 21700611 scored 306 in written but only 06 in the interview. Such examples are dime a dozen.
Kindly refer to Encl 3. There was a huge hue and cry over these irregularities and even the State Assembly was adjourned. No less than 30 MLAs from the TDP, CPI, etc had submitted a memorandum to the Hon’ble Governor requesting him to initiate an inquiry. However, Article 317 of the Constitution clearly states that the President is the only one authorized to ask the Supreme Court to conduct an inquiry into the functioning of the Chairman and Members of a Public Service Commission.
Sir, in my opinion what has happened is also a violation of Fundamental Rights because Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, etc.
In the case of Group-II services, candidates belonging to the Reddy community got on an average 40 marks out of 50 in the interviews, i.e. 80%. Whereas, for other OCs it was 37, for SCs and BCs it was 33 and for STs it was 28.
Here it is pertinent to mention that the UPSC or any other PSC, hardly, if ever, award more than 80% marks in an interview to any candidate. Sir, in your article you had even mentioned that the average interview mark for OCs in UPSC Civil Services is 200 out of 300, i.e. <70%.
If nepotism and willful discrimination is blatantly evident, the fact that 136 candidates out of 550 in Group-I and 169 out of 617 in Group-II were awarded marks in excess of 80% and out of those 36 candidates in Group-I and 60 candidates in Group-II being awarded marks in excess of 90% suggests large scale corruption.
Sir, the fact that the Chairman of the APPSC is a member of the Standing Committee of the UPSC raises even more disturbing questions. Sir, i humbly request you to take up this issue in all seriousness and see that the President initiates a Supreme Court enquiry under Article 317 of the Constitution of India so that justice would prevail.
Thanking you Sir,
Yours sincerely,
(Sunand P)
Shri Sharad Yadav ji, M.P.,
Lok Sabha, N. Delhi.
Respected Sir,
Sub:- Gross irregularities in the Group-I and Group-II recruitment by the APPSC- request to raise this issue in the Parliament and before the President of India- reg.
Encl:- 1. Leader Page Article written by you and published by The Hindu on 07/07/2006.
2. Judgment copy of the SCIC, APIC dt: 23-01-2010.
3. Newspaper article of The Hindu dated 28-03-10.
4. Abysmally low marks in Group-I interviews.
5. Shockingly low marks in Group-II interviews.
Sir, quite unfortunately, the following words that you had written in the leader page article seem to have come in the case of recruitments made by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in the year 2006. The following excerpts have been taken from your article Sir :
“With some exceptions, they have abused their position to denigrate the merit of the people who have been given the constitutional right of reservation — so that privileges enjoyed by some people under the caste system are de-reserved.
People controlling the UPSC and DoPT are so strongly motivated against the candidates of reserved categories that they can go to any extent in their adventure to block the entry of reserved categories in the civil services.
If we analyse the data on successful ST and SC candidates, we discover they have done better in the written test, where the examiner does not know their caste. In the interviews they have been given fewer
marks because people in the interview board know their caste.
An analysis of the results reveals a big gap between the average interview marks given to reserved category candidates and non-reserved category candidates. One successful candidate of the 1996 civil service examinations, who was denied a job, has calculated these averages on the basis of information available with him. Since he fought for his job in the Supreme Court and won, the data he offers can be relied upon in the absence of authoritative data provided by the UPSC. According to this candidate, the average interview mark in the non-reserved category is around 200, while the average for reserved categories candidates is 140.
My information is that thus far 390 successful candidates have been denied jobs in the civil services. Some of them, who have had resources thanks to being in other services, have challenged the DoPT successfully. But what about those who have not moved the courts? Why can't the courts take suo motu notice of such gross denial of justice?”
Sir, I’m mailing you with a strong belief that you would diligently take up this issue and see to it that justice is done and action is taken against the guilty. Sir, if you don’t I am afraid nobody will!
Sir, I, humbly request you to highlight the gross and blatant injustice done, by the APPSC, to the BCs, SCs, STs, and also the “un-influential” among the OCs in the interviews conducted for Group-I and Group-II posts.
Sir, plum posts like the Deputy Collector, Dy. SP, CTO, RTO, Municipal Commissioner, etc constitute Group-I and posts like Dy. Tehsildar, ACTO, etc are part of the Group-II services. Naturally, the stakes are very high ! The shameful nepotism on display is revolting to say the least. The average interview marks of the selected candidates of a particular “influential” community, in both Group-I and Group-II, is over 80% of the interview marks!
However, when it comes to abysmally low marks in the interviews, BCs, SCs, STs, form the overwhelming majority. This despite scoring very good marks in the written. To quote a few examples from Group-I:
Kindly refer to encl 4 Sir. The statistics pertain to candidates who got selected to plum posts. Out of the 24 who scored less than 40 marks out of 90, 14 belong to the BCs (i.e. 58%). Least marks (13 out of 90) were awarded to SC candidates.
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) HT No. 12232473 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. Mr. Samay happens to be an IIT alumnus and an ex-software engineer at the Infosys.
In the case of Mr. Hemantha Naga Raju (BC-A) HT. No. 10704284 and Mr. Meera Prasad E (BC-B),HT No. 10500554 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr.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.
Ms.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)
However, when it comes to Reddy candidates who got selected to plum posts of DC, DSP, CTO, Municipal Commissioner, Dy. Registrar Co-op Societies, AAO, ATO, etc, the lowest marks that they secured was as high as 42 as seen from the interview marks shown below :
Name of the candidate HT No. Marks Obtained Total
(written) (int)
900 90 990
1.Prabhakar Reddy 11004313 634 75 709
2.Venkata Ramana Reddy 11209318 635 85 720
3.Ravi Kiran Reddy M 11005332 570 82 652
4.Narayana Reddy 12241065 589 82 671
5.Srinivasa Reddy S 11010189 586 75 661
6.Srikanth Reddy D 12215225 610 54 664
7.Chandra Shekar Reddy 12239093 582 84 666
8.Venugopal Reddy 12216921 657 73 732
9.Vinay Krishna Reddy 12241876 666 55 721
10.Arvind Reddy 11400057 622 70 692
11.Jitender Reddy 12202403 602 83 685
12.Sudhakar Reddy 20929025 616 70 686
13.Raghunadha Reddy 20929096 602 78 680
14.Madhusudhan Reddy G 20928614 588 87 675
15.Upender Reddy 12203655 600 68 668
16.Ravinder Reddy 12214830 601 62 663
17.Ramsunder Reddy 12215715 583 81 664
18.Ram Mohan Reddy 11100040 595 44 639
19.Srinivasa Reddy 11010189 587 75 661
20.Anil Kumar Reddy 11206334 594 76 670
21.Ravi Shankar Reddy 11104297 595 76 671
22.Koti Reddy Nandyala 12203647 610 85 695
23.Panasa Reddy T 12233569 609 65 674
24.Swapnadevi Reddy 11103570 585 75 660
25.Shanmukha Reddy 11200973 566 74.5 640.5
26.Venumadhava Reddy 11507758 565 81.5 646.5
27.Venkata Narasimha Reddy 12234485 588 52 640
28.Vani Reddy G 12237889 553 82 635
29.Ravindra Reddy 20503965 566 68 634
30.Sankara Narayana Reddy 20801492 591 42 633
31.Prabhakar Reddy J 12230941 577 74.5 651.5
32.Nageshwara Reddy K 20921806 564 87 651
33.Sarveshwar Reddy 11903910 580 74 654
34.Ragha Swathi Reddy 12219893 535 88 623
35.Sreenivasulu Kancham Reddy 10901371 586 75 661
36.Punna Chandra Reddy 20920851 384 74 458
37.Madhavi Latha Kumari Reddy 12233721 606 77 683
38.Gauthami Reddy Midde 11004536 588 85 673
39.Prashanthi Reddy Puppala 20103791 600 71 671
40.Hymavathi Reddy Katta 12216084 613 56 669 ________________
2921.5
The highest marks obtained in the Group-I interviews was an astonishing 88 out of 90,(i.e. 98%) to Ms. Ragha Swathi Reddy {HT. No.12219893}. The average interview mark scored by a Reddy candidate was 2921.5/ 40 = 73. Thus, the average mark scored by them is in itself more than 80% of the interview marks ! Whereas, the average interview marks for other OCs was 64, for the SCs and the BCs it was 60 and for STs it was a measly 53.
Sir, please refer to encl 5. In the case of Group-II services Sir, out of those who scored more than 250 out of 450 in the written (i.e. more than 55% ), 73 candidates were awarded 25 marks or less out of 50 in the interviews… out of the 73 candidates, 41 (56%) are BCs, 15 SCs, 10 STs. The least marks awarded in the interview was 6 out of 50 (12%) to :
Ms. Naga Mani A (BC-A) bearing HT No. 21700611 scored 306 in written but only 06 in the interview. Such examples are dime a dozen.
Kindly refer to Encl 3. There was a huge hue and cry over these irregularities and even the State Assembly was adjourned. No less than 30 MLAs from the TDP, CPI, etc had submitted a memorandum to the Hon’ble Governor requesting him to initiate an inquiry. However, Article 317 of the Constitution clearly states that the President is the only one authorized to ask the Supreme Court to conduct an inquiry into the functioning of the Chairman and Members of a Public Service Commission.
Sir, in my opinion what has happened is also a violation of Fundamental Rights because Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, etc.
In the case of Group-II services, candidates belonging to the Reddy community got on an average 40 marks out of 50 in the interviews, i.e. 80%. Whereas, for other OCs it was 37, for SCs and BCs it was 33 and for STs it was 28.
Here it is pertinent to mention that the UPSC or any other PSC, hardly, if ever, award more than 80% marks in an interview to any candidate. Sir, in your article you had even mentioned that the average interview mark for OCs in UPSC Civil Services is 200 out of 300, i.e. <70%.
If nepotism and willful discrimination is blatantly evident, the fact that 136 candidates out of 550 in Group-I and 169 out of 617 in Group-II were awarded marks in excess of 80% and out of those 36 candidates in Group-I and 60 candidates in Group-II being awarded marks in excess of 90% suggests large scale corruption.
Sir, the fact that the Chairman of the APPSC is a member of the Standing Committee of the UPSC raises even more disturbing questions. Sir, i humbly request you to take up this issue in all seriousness and see that the President initiates a Supreme Court enquiry under Article 317 of the Constitution of India so that justice would prevail.
Thanking you Sir,
Yours sincerely,
(Sunand P)
Petitions
To
Mrs. Sushma Swaraj, M.P. Hyderabad
Leader of the Opposition, 01-04-2010
Lok Sabha, New Delhi.
Madam,
Sub:- Irregularities in the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission- indifference of your leaders in AP and of you at the National level- reg.
Encl: 1.Jugdment copy of the APIC.
2.Copies of the News paper articles of Eenadu, Surya, The Hindu.
Ma’am, it goes without saying that we are totally disappointed in your leaders for their failure to highlight gross and blatant injustice done, by the APPSC, to the BCs, SCs, STs, and also the “un-influential” among the OCs in the interviews conducted for Group-I and Group-II posts.
Ma’am, plum posts like the Deputy Collector, Dy. SP, CTO, RTO, Municipal Commissioner, etc constitute Group-I and posts like Dy. Tehsildar, ACTO, etc are part of the Group-II services. Naturally, the stakes are very high ! The shameful nepotism on display is revolting to say the least. The median of the selected candidates of a particular “influential” community, in both Group-I and Group-II, is over 80% of the interview marks!
Here it is pertinent to mention that, no Public Service Commission in India, including the UPSC hardly, if ever, award more than 80% to any candidate. In addition to that, the irregularities are so much so that, 138 candidates in Group-I and 169 in Group-II were awarded marks in excess of 80%. Whereas 36 candidates were awarded marks in excess of 90% {the highest being 88 out of 90 (i.e., 98%)} in Group-I interviews, in the case of Group- II, 60 candidates were awarded marks in excess of 90% {the highest being 48 out of 50 (i.e., 96%)}.
However, when it comes to abysmally low marks in the interviews, BCs, SCs, STs, form the overwhelming majority. This despite scoring very good marks in the written. To quote a few examples from Group-I:
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.
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) HT No. 12232473 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. Mr. Samay happens to be an IIT alumnus and an ex-software engineer at the Infosys.
In the case of Mr. Hemantha Naga Raju (BC-A) HT. No. 10704284 and Mr. Meera Prasad E (BC-B),HT No. 10500554 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr.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.
Ms.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)
In the case of Group-II services Ma’am, out of those who scored more than 250 out of 450 in the written (i.e. more than 55% ), 73 candidates were awarded 25 marks or less out of 50 in the interviews… out of the 73 candidates, 41 (56%) are BCs, 15 SCs, 10 STs. The least marks awarded in the interview was 6 out of 50 (12%) to :
Ms. Naga Mani A (BC-A) bearing HT No. 21700611 scored 306 in written but only 06 in the interview. Such examples are dime a dozen.
There was a huge hue and cry over these irregularities and even the State Assembly was adjourned. No less than 30 MLAs from the TDP, CPI, etc had submitted a memorandum to the Hon’ble Governor requesting him to initiate an inquiry. However, Article 317 of the Constitution clearly states that the President is the only one authorized to ask the Supreme Court to conduct an inquiry into the functioning of the Chairman and Members of a Public Service Commission.
I, honestly, am appalled that your state level leaders haven’t brought this to your notice! Is it because of indifference, incompetence or is it because the incumbent State President happens to be from an “influential” community ? Or if they had, you didn’t consider it worthy enough of raising it in the Parliament and submitting a memorandum to the President of India ?
In my opinion what has happened is also a violation of Fundamental Rights because Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, etc.
For more details you can kindly visit http://sun-q4t.blogspot.com.
Sincerely hoping that at least now you would take necessary action and see that a Supreme Court inquiry is constituted and justice is done. Else you will be failing in your duty !
Thanking you Ma’am,
Yours sincerely,
(Sunand P)
To Ms. Mayawati ji,
Hon’ble Chief Minister of UP,
Lucknow.
Madam,
Sub:- Irregularities in the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission- indifference of your leaders in AP and by you at the National level- reg.
Encl: 1.Jugdment copy of the APIC.
2.Copies of the News paper articles of Eenadu, Surya, The Hindu.
Ma’am, it goes without saying that we are totally disappointed in your leaders for their failure to highlight gross and blatant injustice done, by the APPSC, to the BCs, SCs, STs, and also the “un-influential” among the OCs in the interviews conducted for Group-I and Group-II posts.
Ma’am, plum posts like the Deputy Collector, Dy. SP, CTO, RTO, Municipal Commissioner, etc constitute Group-I and posts like Dy. Tehsildar, ACTO, etc are part of the Group-II services. Naturally, the stakes are very high ! The shameful nepotism on display is revolting to say the least. The median of the selected candidates of a particular “influential” community, in both Group-I and Group-II, is over 80% of the interview marks!
Here it is pertinent to mention that, no Public Service Commission in India, including the UPSC hardly, if ever, award more than 80% to any candidate. In addition to that, the irregularities are so much so that, 138 candidates in Group-I and 169 in Group-II were awarded marks in excess of 80%. Whereas 36 candidates were awarded marks in excess of 90% {the highest being 88 out of 90 (i.e., 98%)} in Group-I interviews, in the case of Group- II, 60 candidates were awarded marks in excess of 90% {the highest being 48 out of 50 (i.e., 96%)}.
However, when it comes to abysmally low marks in the interviews, BCs, SCs, STs, form the overwhelming majority. This despite scoring very good marks in the written. To quote a few examples from Group-I:
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.
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) HT No. 12232473 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. Mr. Samay happens to be an IIT alumnus and an ex-software engineer at the Infosys.
In the case of Mr. Hemantha Naga Raju (BC-A) HT. No. 10704284 and Mr. Meera Prasad E (BC-B),HT No. 10500554 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr.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.
Ms.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)
In the case of Group-II services Ma’am, out of those who scored more than 250 out of 450 in the written (i.e. more than 55% ), 73 candidates were awarded 25 marks or less out of 50 in the interviews… out of the 73 candidates, 41 (56%) are BCs, 15 SCs, 10 STs. The least marks awarded in the interview was 6 out of 50 (12%) to :
Ms. Naga Mani A (BC-A) bearing HT No. 21700611 scored 306 in written but only 06 in the interview. Such examples are dime a dozen.
There was a huge hue and cry over these irregularities and even the State Assembly was adjourned. No less than 30 MLAs from the TDP, CPI, etc had submitted a memorandum to the Hon’ble Governor requesting him to initiate an inquiry. However, Article 317 of the Constitution clearly states that the President is the only one authorized to ask the Supreme Court to conduct an inquiry into the functioning of the Chairman and Members of a Public Service Commission.
Madam, in my opinion what has happened is also a violation of Fundamental Rights because Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, etc.
For more details you can kindly visit http://sun-q4t.blogspot.com.
Sincerely hoping that at least now you would take necessary action and see that a Supreme Court inquiry is constituted and justice is done. Else you will be failing in your duty !
Thanking you Ma’am,
Yours sincerely,
(Sunand P)
Similarly, petitions had been sent to leaders such as Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mamta Banerjee, Brinda Karat, Sitaram Yechury, Gurudas Dasgupta, etc.
Mrs. Sushma Swaraj, M.P. Hyderabad
Leader of the Opposition, 01-04-2010
Lok Sabha, New Delhi.
Madam,
Sub:- Irregularities in the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission- indifference of your leaders in AP and of you at the National level- reg.
Encl: 1.Jugdment copy of the APIC.
2.Copies of the News paper articles of Eenadu, Surya, The Hindu.
Ma’am, it goes without saying that we are totally disappointed in your leaders for their failure to highlight gross and blatant injustice done, by the APPSC, to the BCs, SCs, STs, and also the “un-influential” among the OCs in the interviews conducted for Group-I and Group-II posts.
Ma’am, plum posts like the Deputy Collector, Dy. SP, CTO, RTO, Municipal Commissioner, etc constitute Group-I and posts like Dy. Tehsildar, ACTO, etc are part of the Group-II services. Naturally, the stakes are very high ! The shameful nepotism on display is revolting to say the least. The median of the selected candidates of a particular “influential” community, in both Group-I and Group-II, is over 80% of the interview marks!
Here it is pertinent to mention that, no Public Service Commission in India, including the UPSC hardly, if ever, award more than 80% to any candidate. In addition to that, the irregularities are so much so that, 138 candidates in Group-I and 169 in Group-II were awarded marks in excess of 80%. Whereas 36 candidates were awarded marks in excess of 90% {the highest being 88 out of 90 (i.e., 98%)} in Group-I interviews, in the case of Group- II, 60 candidates were awarded marks in excess of 90% {the highest being 48 out of 50 (i.e., 96%)}.
However, when it comes to abysmally low marks in the interviews, BCs, SCs, STs, form the overwhelming majority. This despite scoring very good marks in the written. To quote a few examples from Group-I:
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.
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) HT No. 12232473 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. Mr. Samay happens to be an IIT alumnus and an ex-software engineer at the Infosys.
In the case of Mr. Hemantha Naga Raju (BC-A) HT. No. 10704284 and Mr. Meera Prasad E (BC-B),HT No. 10500554 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr.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.
Ms.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)
In the case of Group-II services Ma’am, out of those who scored more than 250 out of 450 in the written (i.e. more than 55% ), 73 candidates were awarded 25 marks or less out of 50 in the interviews… out of the 73 candidates, 41 (56%) are BCs, 15 SCs, 10 STs. The least marks awarded in the interview was 6 out of 50 (12%) to :
Ms. Naga Mani A (BC-A) bearing HT No. 21700611 scored 306 in written but only 06 in the interview. Such examples are dime a dozen.
There was a huge hue and cry over these irregularities and even the State Assembly was adjourned. No less than 30 MLAs from the TDP, CPI, etc had submitted a memorandum to the Hon’ble Governor requesting him to initiate an inquiry. However, Article 317 of the Constitution clearly states that the President is the only one authorized to ask the Supreme Court to conduct an inquiry into the functioning of the Chairman and Members of a Public Service Commission.
I, honestly, am appalled that your state level leaders haven’t brought this to your notice! Is it because of indifference, incompetence or is it because the incumbent State President happens to be from an “influential” community ? Or if they had, you didn’t consider it worthy enough of raising it in the Parliament and submitting a memorandum to the President of India ?
In my opinion what has happened is also a violation of Fundamental Rights because Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, etc.
For more details you can kindly visit http://sun-q4t.blogspot.com.
Sincerely hoping that at least now you would take necessary action and see that a Supreme Court inquiry is constituted and justice is done. Else you will be failing in your duty !
Thanking you Ma’am,
Yours sincerely,
(Sunand P)
To Ms. Mayawati ji,
Hon’ble Chief Minister of UP,
Lucknow.
Madam,
Sub:- Irregularities in the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission- indifference of your leaders in AP and by you at the National level- reg.
Encl: 1.Jugdment copy of the APIC.
2.Copies of the News paper articles of Eenadu, Surya, The Hindu.
Ma’am, it goes without saying that we are totally disappointed in your leaders for their failure to highlight gross and blatant injustice done, by the APPSC, to the BCs, SCs, STs, and also the “un-influential” among the OCs in the interviews conducted for Group-I and Group-II posts.
Ma’am, plum posts like the Deputy Collector, Dy. SP, CTO, RTO, Municipal Commissioner, etc constitute Group-I and posts like Dy. Tehsildar, ACTO, etc are part of the Group-II services. Naturally, the stakes are very high ! The shameful nepotism on display is revolting to say the least. The median of the selected candidates of a particular “influential” community, in both Group-I and Group-II, is over 80% of the interview marks!
Here it is pertinent to mention that, no Public Service Commission in India, including the UPSC hardly, if ever, award more than 80% to any candidate. In addition to that, the irregularities are so much so that, 138 candidates in Group-I and 169 in Group-II were awarded marks in excess of 80%. Whereas 36 candidates were awarded marks in excess of 90% {the highest being 88 out of 90 (i.e., 98%)} in Group-I interviews, in the case of Group- II, 60 candidates were awarded marks in excess of 90% {the highest being 48 out of 50 (i.e., 96%)}.
However, when it comes to abysmally low marks in the interviews, BCs, SCs, STs, form the overwhelming majority. This despite scoring very good marks in the written. To quote a few examples from Group-I:
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.
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) HT No. 12232473 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. Mr. Samay happens to be an IIT alumnus and an ex-software engineer at the Infosys.
In the case of Mr. Hemantha Naga Raju (BC-A) HT. No. 10704284 and Mr. Meera Prasad E (BC-B),HT No. 10500554 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr.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.
Ms.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)
In the case of Group-II services Ma’am, out of those who scored more than 250 out of 450 in the written (i.e. more than 55% ), 73 candidates were awarded 25 marks or less out of 50 in the interviews… out of the 73 candidates, 41 (56%) are BCs, 15 SCs, 10 STs. The least marks awarded in the interview was 6 out of 50 (12%) to :
Ms. Naga Mani A (BC-A) bearing HT No. 21700611 scored 306 in written but only 06 in the interview. Such examples are dime a dozen.
There was a huge hue and cry over these irregularities and even the State Assembly was adjourned. No less than 30 MLAs from the TDP, CPI, etc had submitted a memorandum to the Hon’ble Governor requesting him to initiate an inquiry. However, Article 317 of the Constitution clearly states that the President is the only one authorized to ask the Supreme Court to conduct an inquiry into the functioning of the Chairman and Members of a Public Service Commission.
Madam, in my opinion what has happened is also a violation of Fundamental Rights because Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, etc.
For more details you can kindly visit http://sun-q4t.blogspot.com.
Sincerely hoping that at least now you would take necessary action and see that a Supreme Court inquiry is constituted and justice is done. Else you will be failing in your duty !
Thanking you Ma’am,
Yours sincerely,
(Sunand P)
Similarly, petitions had been sent to leaders such as Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mamta Banerjee, Brinda Karat, Sitaram Yechury, Gurudas Dasgupta, etc.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Petitions to the Authorities
To
Her Excellency,
The President of India
New Delhi.
Madam,
Sub:- Irregularities in the recruitments made by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission under Notification No. 10/2004- Request to invoke Article 317 and call for an enquiry by the Supreme Court- Reg.
Ref:- Petition dt.18-03-10 requesting you to invoke provisions of Art 317
Encl:- 1.Copies of the marks information furnished by the APPSC.
2. News article of the English daily The Hindu dt. 28-03-10.
Madam, even before the controversies regarding the Group-I recruitment died down, equally shocking facts regarding Group- II recruitment made by the APPSC have come out in the open.
It is very shocking to notice the exact pattern of Group-1 repeat wherein people from the reserved categories 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 … should we call it “coincidence” or should we say “intentional”?
Madam, this data pertains to 617 posts of the Group-II examination held under the Notification No. 10/2004:
As regards 617 posts of the Group-II Services, viz. Dy. Tehsildar, ACTO, Municipal Commissioner- Grade -111, Excise S.I. etc, out of the 73 who scored less than 25 marks out of 50, 41 belong to the BCs (i.e. 56%), 15 SCs. Least marks (6) were awarded to an SC and BC candidate. The analysis of 73candidates mentioned above pertains to those who scored more than 250 marks out of 450 in the written, i.e. 55% and above. The physically challenged haven’t been included.
Madam, you would be aware that the UPSC and other Public Service Commissions in India hardly, if ever, award more than 80% in the interview to any candidate. It was shocking to note that the average marks of the selected candidates for Group-II posts belonging to a particular community was 40 out of 50 marks, which in itself is 80% (where as in Group-I it was 73 out of 90 marks) while the average marks for OCs (other than that community) was a reasonable 37; and 33 for SCs, 33 for BCs and 28 for STs.
Madam, an unbelievably high 169 out of the total 617 candidates were awarded marks equal to or more than 80% in the interviews, i.e. 40 or more out of 50. Further, a staggering 60 candidates were awarded 45 marks or more, i.e. in excess of 90%... the highest being 48. i.e., 96%.
Madam, as you would be aware, the Public Service Commissions along with the Supreme Court, Election Commission and the CAG are the bulwarks of the Constitution itself. “Impurity”, “deficiency” in any one of them should not be condoned and should be dealt with firmly.
I, sincerely, request you again Madam, to invoke the provisions of the Article 317 of the Constitution which states that, “… the CHAIRMAN or any other Member of a Public Service Commission shall only be removed from his office… on the ground of misbehaviour according to the report of the Supreme Court which shall hold an enquiry on this matter on a reference being made by the President.”
Madam, I humbly request you call for a Supreme Court inquiry by exercising the powers vested in you under the Art. 317 of the Constitution of India into this matter so that the truth is brought out into the open and the trust of the common man, at least, in Autonomous Institutions is restored.
Thanking you Madam,
Yours faithfully,
(Sunand P)
Sunand P
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyderabd-8.
Copy submitted to:
1. The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India.
2. H.E. The Hon’ble Governor of Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Hon’ble Chairman UPSC.
To
The Hon’ble Prime Minister,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
Sir,
Sub:- Irregularities in the recruitments made by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission under Notification No. 10/2004- Petition to the President to invoke Article 317 and call for an enquiry by the Supreme Court- Reg.
Encl:- 1.Copy of the petition sent to the President of India dt; 06-04-10.
2. Marks copies furnished by the APPSC under the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Copies of the News paper articles of The Hindu dt. 28-03-10.
Sir, please refer to the petition addressed to the President of India and you will come to know of the enormity of the irregularities committed by the APPSC in the Group-II recruitment made in the year 2006 under the Notification No. 10/ 2004.
Sincerely hoping that you would take steps to address this issue on a priority basis.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(Sunand P)
From:
Sunand P
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyd-8
To
His Excellency,
The Governor of Andhra Pradesh,
Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad.
Honourable Sir,
Sub:- Request to invoke provisions of Article 320 of the Constitution of India in view of the obvious irregularities committed by the APPSC in the Group-I and Group-II recruitments- Reg.
Encl:- 1.Petition made to the President of India dt: 06-04-10
2.Marks sheets of Group-II under Notification No. 10/2004 furnished by APPSC under the RTI Act, 2005.
Sir, having cleared the UPSC exam you would be aware that the UPSC and other Public Service Commissions, viz. TNPSC, etc, hardly, if ever, award more than 80% in the interview to any candidate. It was shocking to note that the average marks of the selected candidates for Group-II posts belonging to a particular community was 40 out of 50 marks, which in itself is 80% (where as in Group-1 it was 73 out of 90 marks), while the average marks for OCs (other than that community) was 37; and 33 for SCs and BCs and 28 for STs.
That’s not all Sir, an unbelievably high 169 out of the total 617 candidates were awarded marks equal to or more than 80% in the interviews, i.e. 40 or more out of 50. Further, a staggering 60 candidates were awarded 45 marks or more, i.e. 90% or more with the highest being 48. i.e., 96%.
Sir, as you would be aware, the Public Service Commissions along with the Supreme Court, Election Commission and the CAG are the bulwarks of the Constitution itself. “Impurity”, “deficiency” in any one of them should not be condoned and should be dealt with firmly
Sir, the statistics as mentioned above, in addition to those already presented regarding the Group-1 recruitments, are shocking to say the least. The blatant nepotism on display, the unparalleled benevolence on a favoured few on the one hand and the ruthless discrimination shown towards candidates claiming reservation (some of them highly meritorious) on the other, raises serious questions about the integrity and objectivity of the Chairman and the Members. All this smacks of something very sinister, which only a Supreme Court enquiry can resolve. All said and done Sir, with “lower rung” political appointees “adorning” the APPSC what else can we expect ?!
Sir, it is even more shocking that despite (or should I say, for obvious reasons) all the controversies generated after 11-03-2010, the APPSC has announced the schedule for Group-1 exams et al. This in spite of the Chairman and the Members having no moral right to continue as Constitutional Authorities.
However, as a Supreme Court enquiry, even if initiated, would be a long drawn process, I humbly request you to invoke the provisions of the Art. 320 of the Constitution of India, which states that, “the Public Service Commission for the Union, if requested so to do by the Governor of a State, may, with the approval of the President, agree to serve all or any of the needs of the State.”
Sir, this would, in effect, “absolve” the existing Chairman and Members from “serving” the needs of the unemployed and the Government job aspirants and repose our faith in you and your office.
Thanking you Sir,
Yours sincerely,
(SUNAND P)
Sunand
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyd-8.
Ph: 97036 73308
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.Marks copies of the Group-II services furnished under the RTI Act by the APPSC.
2. News paper article of The Hindu dt.: 28-03-10.
Sir, please refer to the petition addressed to the President of India and you will come to know of the enormity of the irregularities committed by the APPSC in the Group-II recruitments made in the year 2006 under the Notification No. 10/ 2004.
Sincerely hoping that you would take steps to address this issue on a priority basis.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(Sunand P)
From:
Sunand P
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyd-8
Her Excellency,
The President of India
New Delhi.
Madam,
Sub:- Irregularities in the recruitments made by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission under Notification No. 10/2004- Request to invoke Article 317 and call for an enquiry by the Supreme Court- Reg.
Ref:- Petition dt.18-03-10 requesting you to invoke provisions of Art 317
Encl:- 1.Copies of the marks information furnished by the APPSC.
2. News article of the English daily The Hindu dt. 28-03-10.
Madam, even before the controversies regarding the Group-I recruitment died down, equally shocking facts regarding Group- II recruitment made by the APPSC have come out in the open.
It is very shocking to notice the exact pattern of Group-1 repeat wherein people from the reserved categories 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 … should we call it “coincidence” or should we say “intentional”?
Madam, this data pertains to 617 posts of the Group-II examination held under the Notification No. 10/2004:
As regards 617 posts of the Group-II Services, viz. Dy. Tehsildar, ACTO, Municipal Commissioner- Grade -111, Excise S.I. etc, out of the 73 who scored less than 25 marks out of 50, 41 belong to the BCs (i.e. 56%), 15 SCs. Least marks (6) were awarded to an SC and BC candidate. The analysis of 73candidates mentioned above pertains to those who scored more than 250 marks out of 450 in the written, i.e. 55% and above. The physically challenged haven’t been included.
Madam, you would be aware that the UPSC and other Public Service Commissions in India hardly, if ever, award more than 80% in the interview to any candidate. It was shocking to note that the average marks of the selected candidates for Group-II posts belonging to a particular community was 40 out of 50 marks, which in itself is 80% (where as in Group-I it was 73 out of 90 marks) while the average marks for OCs (other than that community) was a reasonable 37; and 33 for SCs, 33 for BCs and 28 for STs.
Madam, an unbelievably high 169 out of the total 617 candidates were awarded marks equal to or more than 80% in the interviews, i.e. 40 or more out of 50. Further, a staggering 60 candidates were awarded 45 marks or more, i.e. in excess of 90%... the highest being 48. i.e., 96%.
Madam, as you would be aware, the Public Service Commissions along with the Supreme Court, Election Commission and the CAG are the bulwarks of the Constitution itself. “Impurity”, “deficiency” in any one of them should not be condoned and should be dealt with firmly.
I, sincerely, request you again Madam, to invoke the provisions of the Article 317 of the Constitution which states that, “… the CHAIRMAN or any other Member of a Public Service Commission shall only be removed from his office… on the ground of misbehaviour according to the report of the Supreme Court which shall hold an enquiry on this matter on a reference being made by the President.”
Madam, I humbly request you call for a Supreme Court inquiry by exercising the powers vested in you under the Art. 317 of the Constitution of India into this matter so that the truth is brought out into the open and the trust of the common man, at least, in Autonomous Institutions is restored.
Thanking you Madam,
Yours faithfully,
(Sunand P)
Sunand P
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyderabd-8.
Copy submitted to:
1. The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India.
2. H.E. The Hon’ble Governor of Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Hon’ble Chairman UPSC.
To
The Hon’ble Prime Minister,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
Sir,
Sub:- Irregularities in the recruitments made by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission under Notification No. 10/2004- Petition to the President to invoke Article 317 and call for an enquiry by the Supreme Court- Reg.
Encl:- 1.Copy of the petition sent to the President of India dt; 06-04-10.
2. Marks copies furnished by the APPSC under the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Copies of the News paper articles of The Hindu dt. 28-03-10.
Sir, please refer to the petition addressed to the President of India and you will come to know of the enormity of the irregularities committed by the APPSC in the Group-II recruitment made in the year 2006 under the Notification No. 10/ 2004.
Sincerely hoping that you would take steps to address this issue on a priority basis.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(Sunand P)
From:
Sunand P
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyd-8
To
His Excellency,
The Governor of Andhra Pradesh,
Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad.
Honourable Sir,
Sub:- Request to invoke provisions of Article 320 of the Constitution of India in view of the obvious irregularities committed by the APPSC in the Group-I and Group-II recruitments- Reg.
Encl:- 1.Petition made to the President of India dt: 06-04-10
2.Marks sheets of Group-II under Notification No. 10/2004 furnished by APPSC under the RTI Act, 2005.
Sir, having cleared the UPSC exam you would be aware that the UPSC and other Public Service Commissions, viz. TNPSC, etc, hardly, if ever, award more than 80% in the interview to any candidate. It was shocking to note that the average marks of the selected candidates for Group-II posts belonging to a particular community was 40 out of 50 marks, which in itself is 80% (where as in Group-1 it was 73 out of 90 marks), while the average marks for OCs (other than that community) was 37; and 33 for SCs and BCs and 28 for STs.
That’s not all Sir, an unbelievably high 169 out of the total 617 candidates were awarded marks equal to or more than 80% in the interviews, i.e. 40 or more out of 50. Further, a staggering 60 candidates were awarded 45 marks or more, i.e. 90% or more with the highest being 48. i.e., 96%.
Sir, as you would be aware, the Public Service Commissions along with the Supreme Court, Election Commission and the CAG are the bulwarks of the Constitution itself. “Impurity”, “deficiency” in any one of them should not be condoned and should be dealt with firmly
Sir, the statistics as mentioned above, in addition to those already presented regarding the Group-1 recruitments, are shocking to say the least. The blatant nepotism on display, the unparalleled benevolence on a favoured few on the one hand and the ruthless discrimination shown towards candidates claiming reservation (some of them highly meritorious) on the other, raises serious questions about the integrity and objectivity of the Chairman and the Members. All this smacks of something very sinister, which only a Supreme Court enquiry can resolve. All said and done Sir, with “lower rung” political appointees “adorning” the APPSC what else can we expect ?!
Sir, it is even more shocking that despite (or should I say, for obvious reasons) all the controversies generated after 11-03-2010, the APPSC has announced the schedule for Group-1 exams et al. This in spite of the Chairman and the Members having no moral right to continue as Constitutional Authorities.
However, as a Supreme Court enquiry, even if initiated, would be a long drawn process, I humbly request you to invoke the provisions of the Art. 320 of the Constitution of India, which states that, “the Public Service Commission for the Union, if requested so to do by the Governor of a State, may, with the approval of the President, agree to serve all or any of the needs of the State.”
Sir, this would, in effect, “absolve” the existing Chairman and Members from “serving” the needs of the unemployed and the Government job aspirants and repose our faith in you and your office.
Thanking you Sir,
Yours sincerely,
(SUNAND P)
Sunand
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyd-8.
Ph: 97036 73308
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.Marks copies of the Group-II services furnished under the RTI Act by the APPSC.
2. News paper article of The Hindu dt.: 28-03-10.
Sir, please refer to the petition addressed to the President of India and you will come to know of the enormity of the irregularities committed by the APPSC in the Group-II recruitments made in the year 2006 under the Notification No. 10/ 2004.
Sincerely hoping that you would take steps to address this issue on a priority basis.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(Sunand P)
From:
Sunand P
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyd-8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)