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.
No comments:
Post a Comment