To
Hon’ble Mr. Jus. S. H. Kapadia,
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,
The Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
Hon’ble Sir,
Sub :- Petition seeking a review of an earlier SC judgment that allowed bandhs-
request to accept as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)- Reg.
Sir, as you would be aware bandhs disrupt normal life and almost every one from all walks of life is affected. As public transport is cancelled, people are forced to either remain indoors or are stranded at a ‘no-man’s land’ against their free will. We keep hearing of instances where the sick could not reach the hospital on time resulting in loss of lives. Commercial establishments, grocery stores, vegetable markets and even medical shops are closed out of fear of violence putting legions of people to untold hardships. Educational institutes and offices are shut due to fear of violence and damage to property. The country as a whole, which is in its nascent stage of economic recovery, is held to ransom to the whims and fancies of a few individuals, which while causing great suffering to millions puts the country through huge financial losses.
Considering these facts Sir, i firmly believe that any action on the part of Political Parties and their affiliated associations to call for a bandh and as a consequence impose restrictions against the free will on the free movement of people; obstruct trade on a phenomenal scale, is in gross violation of the Fundamental Rights Viz., freedom of movement throughout the territory of India, right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, etc as specifically enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Hon’ble Sir, during the enforcement of the bandh, many anti-social elements resort to violence and damage public and private property. Political parties and their affiliated associations and any other organization, if aggrieved, can take recourse to alternative logical, rational means of protest, viz., petitioning the authorities concerned, waging a legal battle, etc, without putting the general public (infants, the sick and suffering inclusive) through untold hardships; causing pecuniary loss to millions of daily wage earners and deprive them of their livelihoods.
Hon’ble Sir, isn’t it ironical to note that, in numerous instances, the common man is put to such sufferings all in the name of a Party’s or an Organization’s fight for the cause/s of
the under-privileged and the disadvantaged sections of the society. Such acts question the pith and substance of the maxim, “democracy means the greater good of greater number of people.”
Hon’ble Sir, India’s history is replete with instances wherein, Political parties enforced the bandhs ruthlessly. Forced shutdown of social and economic activity backed by the implicit threat of violence is how bandhs are claimed to be ‘successful’. In most cases, political parties succeed in enforcing their call because people fear for their safety.
Hon’ble Sir, some of the causes that they claim to espouse may be genuine. Agreed. However, that should not allowed to be wielded as a free licence to coerce people to remain indoors, stall public transport and leave hundreds and thousands of people stranded, indulge in hooliganism, effect the livelihood of millions of daily wage earners, adversely effect the functioning of educational institutions, commercial establishments, medical facilities, etc. The list of sufferers is endless.
Hon’ble Sir, given these facts it was shocking to note that, and I quote from the Times of India e-paper dated 4th Feb’ 2009 which can kindly be accessed at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-does-a-U-turn-says-bandhs-OK-in-democracy/articleshow/4071588.cms
“The Supreme Court in the year 2009 termed bandhs as legitimate means of expressing people's feelings in a democracy, reversing a trend judiciary has followed since 1997 when it had come down hard upon political parties for causing inconvenience to the public by forcing shutdowns.
The Bench headed by CJI and comprising Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal observed that in a democratic country, everyone had the right to express their feelings: a remark that would be lapped up by political parties who never acquiesced to judiciary's stand against bandhs.
In the 1997 judgment, the Kerala HC had said, "No political party or organisation can claim that it is entitled to paralyse industry and commerce in the entire state or nation and is entitled to prevent the citizens not in sympathy with its viewpoint from exercising their fundamental right or from performing their duties for their own benefits or for the benefit of the state or the nation."
It added, "Such a claim would be unreasonable and could not be accepted as a legitimate exercise of a fundamental right by a political party or those comprising it." The order had met with thunderous applause from millions across the country.
Hon’ble Sir, I don’t mean to influence your judgment or understanding. Far from it Sir. However, I humbly request you kindly peruse the responses’ to that article. These were opinions expressed by well-meaning, educated people who have at their heart the all round development of our country
Hon’ble Sir, their views may kindly be taken in the right spirit and as supporting arguments and prayers for a review of the judgment favouring bandhs in India. Hon’ble Sir, kindly allow me the liberty to present some of the views for your kind perusal.
Abhijit Basu San Jose 04/02/2009 at 11:10 am
Bandh is not a freedom of expression, it is a freedom of oppression and hooliganism by political and religious organizations.
Piyush Mysore 04/02/2009 at 11:10 am
This decision comes as a bad omen for citizens of India who, disillusioned by the political brass have always looked up to the SC for assuaging their miseries. With due honor and respect for the CJI and the apex court… There is a difference between bandh and strike. The former is exercised by the political or ideological outfits in accordance with their own whims and prejudices, forcibly engulfing the people who does not empathize with their sentiments, are more a show of power that result in breakdown of law and order. Strike is done to promote once cause and in a lawful manner without making someone to consent by use of force. If our politicians are really worried about the welfare of people and want to dissent on certain issue why can't they take the route of Satyagrah. They won't as they won't get a chance to show case their power then. With this unfortunate decision the SC has set a wrong precedent and undone the good will it has garnered among the people.
EWRudradas Kochi 04/02/2009 at 11:04 am
This judgement is against the interest of the people and the country.Did the supreme court think about the rights of the individuals who were denied their freedom of movement during a bandh?
Ashok New York 04/02/2009 at 10:54 am
The judges need to clarify if the right to Bandh, also includes the right prevent another human from working to earn his livelihood under the threat of force and violence.
Sir, I humbly request you to kindly see the aforementioned opinions as expressions of genuine and well-meaning concerns.
Main Prayer:
Sir, I humbly request you to kindly consider this petition as a Public Interest Litigation as it calls into question and prays for the prevention of the violation of the Fundamental Rights of millions of our fellow Indians.
Sir, I humbly request you to kindly constitute a larger Constitutional Bench to review the earlier judgment as delivered by The Bench headed by the ex- CJI, Mr. Jus. K. G. Balakrishnan and comprising Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal which allowed bandhs.
Sir, I also humbly request you and pray that you kindly exercise the powers vested in you by the Article 32 of the Constitution of India and issue writ or writs and pass such other order or orders or directions, that you deem fit and necessary, and prevent the blatant, flagrant violation, by Political Parties, Organizations, Associations, etc in the name of bandhs and such other forms of protest, of the Fundamental Rights of our citizens as enshrined in Article 19 and other relevant Articles of our Constitution.
Thanking you Sir,
Yours sincerely,
(SUNAND P)
From:
Sunand P
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyd-8.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Civilized Society?
Ours is one of the oldest civilizations in the world with a history of about 5000 years. We pride ourselves on the way we treat our guests… “ATHIDI DEVO BHAVAH”.
I am no fan of Mr. Jagan, but what happened during the course of his Odarpu Yatra esp. in Mahbubabad Railway Station is unacceptable to say the least. How can we claim ourselves to be civilized when rogue elements pelt stones on people esp. women; damage and destroy public property; escalate tensions, etc. I sincerely hope that such acts of hooliganism do not recur. (please refer to the PIL dt:16-05-2010 that has been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.)
The Constitution of India vide Article 19 (1) (d) specifically guarantees freedom of movement throughout the territory of India, right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The Freedom of movement is a Fundamental Right of every citizen of India. Thus, preventing a person from moving freely amounts to gross violation of the Fundamental Rights.
The agitators would have been well within their rights to hold, if aggrieved, protests by holding black flags, sporting black badges etc, but indulging in acts of violence cannot be condoned. Having said that, such non-violent acts may not have got the “footage” that violent acts ensure. Here the role of the 4th Estate has to be called into question.
Despite Mr. Jagan having had a hands-on experience as to how one would feel it his/ her Fundamental Right is violated as had happened in Group-I and Group-II interviews (2006), where-in the Fundamental Rights of the many candidates as provided for under Article 16 of our Constitution were trampled upon, it is rather unfortunate.
Article 16 provides for Equality of opportunity in matters of Public Employment irrespective of Caste, Creed, Sex, Region, Religion, etc.
Peaceful protests are most welcome, however, violent protests and bandhs have no place in a civilized society and a growing, developing economy like ours.
I am no fan of Mr. Jagan, but what happened during the course of his Odarpu Yatra esp. in Mahbubabad Railway Station is unacceptable to say the least. How can we claim ourselves to be civilized when rogue elements pelt stones on people esp. women; damage and destroy public property; escalate tensions, etc. I sincerely hope that such acts of hooliganism do not recur. (please refer to the PIL dt:16-05-2010 that has been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.)
The Constitution of India vide Article 19 (1) (d) specifically guarantees freedom of movement throughout the territory of India, right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The Freedom of movement is a Fundamental Right of every citizen of India. Thus, preventing a person from moving freely amounts to gross violation of the Fundamental Rights.
The agitators would have been well within their rights to hold, if aggrieved, protests by holding black flags, sporting black badges etc, but indulging in acts of violence cannot be condoned. Having said that, such non-violent acts may not have got the “footage” that violent acts ensure. Here the role of the 4th Estate has to be called into question.
Despite Mr. Jagan having had a hands-on experience as to how one would feel it his/ her Fundamental Right is violated as had happened in Group-I and Group-II interviews (2006), where-in the Fundamental Rights of the many candidates as provided for under Article 16 of our Constitution were trampled upon, it is rather unfortunate.
Article 16 provides for Equality of opportunity in matters of Public Employment irrespective of Caste, Creed, Sex, Region, Religion, etc.
Peaceful protests are most welcome, however, violent protests and bandhs have no place in a civilized society and a growing, developing economy like ours.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
IN THE JUDICATURE OF THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HYDERABAD
Between:
Sunand P,
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyd- 8. ---- PETITIONER
And
1. Dr. Y. Venkatarami Reddy,
Chairman, APPSC,
Nampally Hyderabad.
2. Mr. Venkat Reddy,
Member, APPSC,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. Mr. B. Ramakrishna Raju,
Member, APPSC,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
4. Mr. T. Bhadraiah,
Ex-Member, APPSC,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
5. Mrs. Renu Khosla,
Ex- Member, APPSC,
Nampally Hyderabad.
6. Shri Harpreet Singh (IAS)
Ex- Secretary, APPSC
Presently Managing Director of
A.P. Diary Development,
Hyderabad. --- RESPONDENTS
MATERIAL PAPER INDEX
S.No. Description of the documents Pages Annexure
1. Judgment copy of the Hon’ble 2 I
SCIC, APIC, Hyderabad
2. Covering letter given by the APPSC 2 II
3. Marks sheet of Group-I provided by 6 III
the APPSC under the RTI Act, 2005
4. E-version of a book written by 6 IV
Civil Services Toppers.
5. Marks sheet of Group-II provided 6 V
by the APPSC under the RTI Act,
2005
6. Marks copies of certain exams
conducted by the Tamil Nadu 6 VI
Public Service Commission.
7. Copies of Newspaper articles 6 VII
(Eenadu, Surya)alleging irregularities
in award of interview marks by the
Chairman and Members, APPSC.
8. Copies of Newspaper articles 2 VIII
(The Hindu) which shows MLAs’from TDP
and CPI submitting a memorandum to the
Hon’ble Governor of AP.
9. Compact Disc featuring a program telecast by
TV5, a reputed Telugu News channel, alleging
disproportionate assets owned by the Chairman.
Sir, I, Sunand P, R/o 28, Bal Reddy Nagar, Toli Chowki, Hyderabd-8, do solemnly swear and affirm that everything mentioned and enclosed along with this petition is true to the best of my knowledge.
Sir, it was only after a long drawn fight of over a year that I could have access to information regarding the Names, Community, Marks secured in the written exam and marks awarded in the interviews of the selected candidates. Even that was enabled only because the Hon’ble State Chief Information Commissioner, APIC directed the APPSC to furnish the information. (please refer to Annex. I). The APPSC furnished the information and it was delivered to me on the 3rd of March, 2010 (please refer Annex. II)
Sir, the analysis of the data pertaining to recruitments made by the APPSC under Notification No. 21/ 2003 to 312 plum Group-I posts, viz., Deputy Collector, Deputy SP, CTO, RTO, Municipal Commissioner, Dy. Registrar Co-op Societies, revealed shocking details.
Sir, it was shocking to note that the average marks of the selected candidates belonging to a particular community was 73 out of 90 marks, which in itself is more than 80%, while the average marks for OCs (other than that community) was a reasonable 64 out of 90 marks; and 60 for SCs, 60 for BCs and 53 for STs. (please refer to Annex III).
That’s not all Sir, an unbelievably high 136 out of 550 candidates (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, a staggering 36 candidates were awarded 81 marks or more, i.e. in excess of 90% with the highest being 88 out of 90 HT No. 12219893, i.e., an unprecedented 98%.
Here it is pertinent to mention that, I am sure that 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. In a book titled ‘How to Crack Civil Services’ written by Civil Service Toppers which includes the All India Topper Mr. Mutyala Raju Revu in the year 2006, it is specifically mentioned that the interview marks for the UPSC are in the range of 50-240 out of 300 (please refer to Annex IV). In that year (2006), not even a single candidate scored more than 80% in the interviews, the highest being 231 out of 300.
Sir, in this regard, I humbly request you to call for records of interview marks awarded by the UPSC in the past (any reasonable span of time) and in the case of APPSC before the year 2005, i.e. in the instances of recruitments made before the incumbent Chairman and Members took charge. Sir, I believe that the comparison of the marks awarded by the UPSC and the erstwhile Interview Boards of the APPSC with those of the marks awarded in Group-I interviews conducted in the year 2006 would make the irregularities committed in the instant case crystal clear.
As if that’s not enough Sir, the discrimination shown towards candidates (some highly meritorious) claiming reservation is beyond belief. To quote a few examples, Sir :
As regards 312 plum posts of the Group-1 Services, viz. Dy. Collector, DSP, CTO, Municipal Commissioner, RTO, etc. 24 candidates were given less than 40 marks out of 90 marks in the interviews. Out of the 24 candidates, 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 out of 900 in the written exam, but got only 32 in the interview taking his tally to 719 out of 990 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 bearing HT No. 12232473 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
Thus, many reserved candidates who could have made it in the open competition by virtue of high marks in the written seem to have been slighted in the interviews. Thus, they had to claim reservation and lost the opportunity of making it in the open. In effect, many candidates who could have filled the vacancies that would have remained in the “reservation pool” had lost out on getting employment.
Sir, such blatant nepotism on one hand and the evident discrimination on the other hand is in gross violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution because Article 16 provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, etc.
Sir, as regards Group-II services, viz., posts like Dy. Tahsildar, ACTO, Excise S.I., Sub- Registrar, etc under Notification No. 10/ 2004, 169 out of 614 were awarded marks equal to or in excess of 40 out of 50 marks, i.e. 80%. Further, a staggering 60 candidates were awarded marks equal to or in excess of 45 out of 50, i.e. 90%. (Please refer to Annex. V)
Here it is significant to mention again that the UPSC or any other PSC, hardly, if ever, award more than 80% marks in an interview to any candidate. The TNPSC too does not award more than 80% marks to any candidate in the interviews (please refer to Annex. VI).
However, when it comes to shockingly low marks in the interviews for both Group-I and Group-II services, candidates belonging to BC, SC and ST communities invariably formed the overwhelming majority !
Sir, kindly refer to these statistics which pertain to those candidates who scored more than 250 out of 450 marks, i.e., more than 55% marks in the Group-II written exam. Out of the 73 candidates who were given 25 marks or less out of 50 marks in the interviews, 41 (i.e.56%) are BCs, 15 SCs, 10 STs, OCs making the rest (7). Sir, I have all the records pertaining to Group-I and Group-II recruitments made in the year 2006 and I would be most obliged to present them for your kind perusal.
Sir, the gross irregularities committed by the APPSC was highlighted by the print as well as the electronic media. Sir, another important point to note is that , out of the 11 posts of Deputy Collectors that were in open competition, 8 were bagged by candidates belonging to a particular community by virtue of phenomenally high marks in the interviews. .(please refer to Annex VII).
Sir, keeping in view the seriousness of the irregularities committed, the AP State Assembly, on the 27th of March, was adjourned over this issue and later MLAs from the TDP, the CPI submitted a memorandum to the Hon’ble Governor of AP (please refer to Annex VIII).
Sir, lakhs of people appear for the exams conducted by the APPSC for various posts. Such serious irregularity on the part of the powers that be raises questions on the fairness, objectivity of the selection process itself. Sir, only a thorough probe, without any further delay, can uncover the truth and only then will some amount of credibility and respectability be restored to the APPSC.
Sir, in addition to all this, a reputed Telugu News Channel, TV5 aired a special program alleging that the incumbent Chairman of the APPSC owns disproportionate assets (please refer to the CD that has been enclosed). Sir, I humbly request you to order a CBI enquiry to bring out the truth.
Prayer:
Sir, keeping in view the grave irregularities, I humbly pray and request you to exercise the powers vested in you by virtue of Article 226 of our Constitution and issue a writ of mandamus or issue any other directions or order or orders as you deem fit and necessary and call for records, from the APPSC, of the interview marks awarded by each Interview Board, separately, to all the candidates who appeared for the Group-I and Group-II interviews in the years 2006 and 2009. Sir, I request you to kindly also ask for marks assigned in the interview and reported in writing, individually, by each member of the Interview Board.
Sir, I humbly pray and request you to call for records of the interview marks awarded to Group-I and Group-II candidates by each Interview Board of the APPSC prior to 2005, i.e., before the incumbent Chairman and Members took charge so as to compare them with the marks awarded in Group-I and Group-II recruitments in the years 2006 and in 2009.
Sir, equally importantly, kindly exercise your powers and direct the UPSC to furnish interview marks awarded to Civil Services candidates (over any reasonable span of time that you deem fit) so that a comparison with the marks awarded by the APPSC would make the irregularities on the part of APPSC explicitly apparent.
Sir, I also humbly pray and request you to constitute a CBI enquiry to look into the allegations of corruption in recruitments and amassing of disproportionate assets by the incumbent Chairman, APPSC as reported by the News Channel TV5.
Regards,
(Sunand P)
HYDERABAD
Between:
Sunand P,
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyd- 8. ---- PETITIONER
And
1. Dr. Y. Venkatarami Reddy,
Chairman, APPSC,
Nampally Hyderabad.
2. Mr. Venkat Reddy,
Member, APPSC,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. Mr. B. Ramakrishna Raju,
Member, APPSC,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
4. Mr. T. Bhadraiah,
Ex-Member, APPSC,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
5. Mrs. Renu Khosla,
Ex- Member, APPSC,
Nampally Hyderabad.
6. Shri Harpreet Singh (IAS)
Ex- Secretary, APPSC
Presently Managing Director of
A.P. Diary Development,
Hyderabad. --- RESPONDENTS
MATERIAL PAPER INDEX
S.No. Description of the documents Pages Annexure
1. Judgment copy of the Hon’ble 2 I
SCIC, APIC, Hyderabad
2. Covering letter given by the APPSC 2 II
3. Marks sheet of Group-I provided by 6 III
the APPSC under the RTI Act, 2005
4. E-version of a book written by 6 IV
Civil Services Toppers.
5. Marks sheet of Group-II provided 6 V
by the APPSC under the RTI Act,
2005
6. Marks copies of certain exams
conducted by the Tamil Nadu 6 VI
Public Service Commission.
7. Copies of Newspaper articles 6 VII
(Eenadu, Surya)alleging irregularities
in award of interview marks by the
Chairman and Members, APPSC.
8. Copies of Newspaper articles 2 VIII
(The Hindu) which shows MLAs’from TDP
and CPI submitting a memorandum to the
Hon’ble Governor of AP.
9. Compact Disc featuring a program telecast by
TV5, a reputed Telugu News channel, alleging
disproportionate assets owned by the Chairman.
Sir, I, Sunand P, R/o 28, Bal Reddy Nagar, Toli Chowki, Hyderabd-8, do solemnly swear and affirm that everything mentioned and enclosed along with this petition is true to the best of my knowledge.
Sir, it was only after a long drawn fight of over a year that I could have access to information regarding the Names, Community, Marks secured in the written exam and marks awarded in the interviews of the selected candidates. Even that was enabled only because the Hon’ble State Chief Information Commissioner, APIC directed the APPSC to furnish the information. (please refer to Annex. I). The APPSC furnished the information and it was delivered to me on the 3rd of March, 2010 (please refer Annex. II)
Sir, the analysis of the data pertaining to recruitments made by the APPSC under Notification No. 21/ 2003 to 312 plum Group-I posts, viz., Deputy Collector, Deputy SP, CTO, RTO, Municipal Commissioner, Dy. Registrar Co-op Societies, revealed shocking details.
Sir, it was shocking to note that the average marks of the selected candidates belonging to a particular community was 73 out of 90 marks, which in itself is more than 80%, while the average marks for OCs (other than that community) was a reasonable 64 out of 90 marks; and 60 for SCs, 60 for BCs and 53 for STs. (please refer to Annex III).
That’s not all Sir, an unbelievably high 136 out of 550 candidates (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, a staggering 36 candidates were awarded 81 marks or more, i.e. in excess of 90% with the highest being 88 out of 90 HT No. 12219893, i.e., an unprecedented 98%.
Here it is pertinent to mention that, I am sure that 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. In a book titled ‘How to Crack Civil Services’ written by Civil Service Toppers which includes the All India Topper Mr. Mutyala Raju Revu in the year 2006, it is specifically mentioned that the interview marks for the UPSC are in the range of 50-240 out of 300 (please refer to Annex IV). In that year (2006), not even a single candidate scored more than 80% in the interviews, the highest being 231 out of 300.
Sir, in this regard, I humbly request you to call for records of interview marks awarded by the UPSC in the past (any reasonable span of time) and in the case of APPSC before the year 2005, i.e. in the instances of recruitments made before the incumbent Chairman and Members took charge. Sir, I believe that the comparison of the marks awarded by the UPSC and the erstwhile Interview Boards of the APPSC with those of the marks awarded in Group-I interviews conducted in the year 2006 would make the irregularities committed in the instant case crystal clear.
As if that’s not enough Sir, the discrimination shown towards candidates (some highly meritorious) claiming reservation is beyond belief. To quote a few examples, Sir :
As regards 312 plum posts of the Group-1 Services, viz. Dy. Collector, DSP, CTO, Municipal Commissioner, RTO, etc. 24 candidates were given less than 40 marks out of 90 marks in the interviews. Out of the 24 candidates, 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 out of 900 in the written exam, but got only 32 in the interview taking his tally to 719 out of 990 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 bearing HT No. 12232473 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
Thus, many reserved candidates who could have made it in the open competition by virtue of high marks in the written seem to have been slighted in the interviews. Thus, they had to claim reservation and lost the opportunity of making it in the open. In effect, many candidates who could have filled the vacancies that would have remained in the “reservation pool” had lost out on getting employment.
Sir, such blatant nepotism on one hand and the evident discrimination on the other hand is in gross violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution because Article 16 provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, etc.
Sir, as regards Group-II services, viz., posts like Dy. Tahsildar, ACTO, Excise S.I., Sub- Registrar, etc under Notification No. 10/ 2004, 169 out of 614 were awarded marks equal to or in excess of 40 out of 50 marks, i.e. 80%. Further, a staggering 60 candidates were awarded marks equal to or in excess of 45 out of 50, i.e. 90%. (Please refer to Annex. V)
Here it is significant to mention again that the UPSC or any other PSC, hardly, if ever, award more than 80% marks in an interview to any candidate. The TNPSC too does not award more than 80% marks to any candidate in the interviews (please refer to Annex. VI).
However, when it comes to shockingly low marks in the interviews for both Group-I and Group-II services, candidates belonging to BC, SC and ST communities invariably formed the overwhelming majority !
Sir, kindly refer to these statistics which pertain to those candidates who scored more than 250 out of 450 marks, i.e., more than 55% marks in the Group-II written exam. Out of the 73 candidates who were given 25 marks or less out of 50 marks in the interviews, 41 (i.e.56%) are BCs, 15 SCs, 10 STs, OCs making the rest (7). Sir, I have all the records pertaining to Group-I and Group-II recruitments made in the year 2006 and I would be most obliged to present them for your kind perusal.
Sir, the gross irregularities committed by the APPSC was highlighted by the print as well as the electronic media. Sir, another important point to note is that , out of the 11 posts of Deputy Collectors that were in open competition, 8 were bagged by candidates belonging to a particular community by virtue of phenomenally high marks in the interviews. .(please refer to Annex VII).
Sir, keeping in view the seriousness of the irregularities committed, the AP State Assembly, on the 27th of March, was adjourned over this issue and later MLAs from the TDP, the CPI submitted a memorandum to the Hon’ble Governor of AP (please refer to Annex VIII).
Sir, lakhs of people appear for the exams conducted by the APPSC for various posts. Such serious irregularity on the part of the powers that be raises questions on the fairness, objectivity of the selection process itself. Sir, only a thorough probe, without any further delay, can uncover the truth and only then will some amount of credibility and respectability be restored to the APPSC.
Sir, in addition to all this, a reputed Telugu News Channel, TV5 aired a special program alleging that the incumbent Chairman of the APPSC owns disproportionate assets (please refer to the CD that has been enclosed). Sir, I humbly request you to order a CBI enquiry to bring out the truth.
Prayer:
Sir, keeping in view the grave irregularities, I humbly pray and request you to exercise the powers vested in you by virtue of Article 226 of our Constitution and issue a writ of mandamus or issue any other directions or order or orders as you deem fit and necessary and call for records, from the APPSC, of the interview marks awarded by each Interview Board, separately, to all the candidates who appeared for the Group-I and Group-II interviews in the years 2006 and 2009. Sir, I request you to kindly also ask for marks assigned in the interview and reported in writing, individually, by each member of the Interview Board.
Sir, I humbly pray and request you to call for records of the interview marks awarded to Group-I and Group-II candidates by each Interview Board of the APPSC prior to 2005, i.e., before the incumbent Chairman and Members took charge so as to compare them with the marks awarded in Group-I and Group-II recruitments in the years 2006 and in 2009.
Sir, equally importantly, kindly exercise your powers and direct the UPSC to furnish interview marks awarded to Civil Services candidates (over any reasonable span of time that you deem fit) so that a comparison with the marks awarded by the APPSC would make the irregularities on the part of APPSC explicitly apparent.
Sir, I also humbly pray and request you to constitute a CBI enquiry to look into the allegations of corruption in recruitments and amassing of disproportionate assets by the incumbent Chairman, APPSC as reported by the News Channel TV5.
Regards,
(Sunand P)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)