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
Monday, March 29, 2010
INDIA
INDIA, today, is the 2nd fastest growing economy in the world. The entire world is looking up to us and unfortunately we have in our midst people who are contriving to take us back to where we were thousands of years ago. As long as we, each one of us, cling-on to retrograde feelings like casteism, religious bigotry, regionalism, etc, we can’t really blame those who exploit the authority in their hands to further their clan’s selfish ends. The time has come to consign such ill feelings (not to forget corruption and inefficiency in public services) to the flames in the interest of our and the future generations.
The irregularities in 2003 Group-I had been brought out in the open on the 11th Mar’ 10 and Group-II on the 26th. How many political parties and politicians have genuinely voiced their concern?? A handful ?! Isn’t it shocking to note that the TDP is trying to brush off it’s hands by writing a letter to the PM? May be their leaders aren’t aware of the provisions of the Constitution. Let’s teach them what Article 317 of the Constitution of India has to say. Wouldn’t want to waste our breath on parties like the TRS, PRP, BJP, etc which haven’t even raised this issue on any forum. The least said about the ruling Congress, the better!
This brings these questions to mind!
1.Do they have any right to rule us considering their lack of awareness of the Constitutional provisions?
2. May be the political parties think that the weaker sections of the society along with the un-influential OCs (which together form the majority) are dispensable and they can rule without our votes! That they can fool around with our lives and careers.
3. How long will we allow crooked, cunning, exploitative politicians to take us for a ride?
In the interest of our nation, we will not allow that to continue! Let’s tell them “we’ve had enough” ! “We need deeds not just words”!
Our country’s journey towards unbridled prosperity and ever-lasting peace will truly begin… the day… we begin to ask these questions and shed all the retrograde feelings!
Let’s transform India !
Jai Hind!
The irregularities in 2003 Group-I had been brought out in the open on the 11th Mar’ 10 and Group-II on the 26th. How many political parties and politicians have genuinely voiced their concern?? A handful ?! Isn’t it shocking to note that the TDP is trying to brush off it’s hands by writing a letter to the PM? May be their leaders aren’t aware of the provisions of the Constitution. Let’s teach them what Article 317 of the Constitution of India has to say. Wouldn’t want to waste our breath on parties like the TRS, PRP, BJP, etc which haven’t even raised this issue on any forum. The least said about the ruling Congress, the better!
This brings these questions to mind!
1.Do they have any right to rule us considering their lack of awareness of the Constitutional provisions?
2. May be the political parties think that the weaker sections of the society along with the un-influential OCs (which together form the majority) are dispensable and they can rule without our votes! That they can fool around with our lives and careers.
3. How long will we allow crooked, cunning, exploitative politicians to take us for a ride?
In the interest of our nation, we will not allow that to continue! Let’s tell them “we’ve had enough” ! “We need deeds not just words”!
Our country’s journey towards unbridled prosperity and ever-lasting peace will truly begin… the day… we begin to ask these questions and shed all the retrograde feelings!
Let’s transform India !
Jai Hind!
What kinda justice?
1. In the case of DCs : 7 posts in open competition
Out of 7 posts in open competition, two candidates belonging to BC-D made it to DC in the open competition even though they were awarded 32 and 64 marks in the interview… that’s a median of 48.
1.Shiva Lingaiah Chettipally (BC-D) 12203120 687 32 719
2.Venkateshwarulu Vasan (BC-D) 12228599 643 64 707
However, the Reddy candidates who made it to the DC posts were awarded marks 73, 55, 83, 75 in the interview… that is a median of 72 out of 90 which is 80% of the interview marks.
1.Venugopal Reddy 12216921 657 73 732
2.Vinay Krishna Reddy 12241876 666 55 721
3.Venkata Ramana Reddy 11209318 635 85 720
4.Prabhakar Reddy 11004313 634 75 709
The Cut off in open competition (7 vacancies) for DC posts is 707 which was achieved by:
Hanumantha Rao M 12256687 657 50 707
Venkateshwarulu Vasan (BC-D) 12228599 643 64 707
However, Mr. Chandra Shekar Goud who scored 678 marks in the written , i.e. 2nd highest overall… got only 28 marks in the interview and a total of 706 and got RTO in open competition.
Chandrasekhar Goud(BC-B) 12232100 678 28 706
It has to be noted that, he could have made it as a DC and that too in the open competition , if he had got even 30 marks in the interview.
2. In the case of CTO, out of 8 vacancies in the Open Competition
4 candidates belonging to BC-B made it in the open competition even though they were awarded marks of 62, 78, 78, 51.5, i.e. a median of 67.
Madhu Babu K (BC-B) 20102402 634 62 696
Shashidhara Chary (BC-B) 12229049 605 78 683
Seshadri T (BC-B) 11200018 600 78 678
Nagarjuna Rao (BC-A) 10500775 622 51.5 673.5
However, 3 Reddy’s made it as CTO with interview marks of 70, 83, 78, i.e. a median of 77, i.e., 86% marks out of 90
1.Arvind Reddy 11400057 622 70 692
2.Jitender Reddy 12202403 602 83 685
3.Raghunadha Reddy 20929096 602 78 680
In the case of CTO Open competition (women), 1 BC candidate made it in the open even though she secured 60 marks out of 90 in the interview.
Naga Jyothi Dasari (BC-D) 10708932 596 60 656
Whereas, candidates belong to OC, made it with interview marks of 67, 80, 73, i.e. a median of 73.33 (81% of 90)
Sumathi G 11201373 597 67 664
Hema Indukuri 10801981 575 80 655
Mangala Deepti 12209330 583 73 656
3. In the case of DSP Cat-II (10 Vacancies in the open)
A candidate belonging to the BCs got selected in the open competition although he was awarded only 21 marks in the interview.
Gangadhar Reddy (BC-D) 10601169 649 21 670
If he had secured 59 marks in the interview, he would have got selected as a DC in the open competition. Even if he had to claim reservation, he would have become a DC had he got just 27 marks in the interview.
However, 4 Reddy’s got selected even though they secured less marks than him in the written with interview marks of 85, 65, 76, 82, i.e. a median of 77.(i.e. 86% of 90). Please note that Narayana Reddy K scored a full 60 marks less than Gangadhar Reddy (BC-D) in the written.
Koti Reddy Nandyala 12203647 610 85 695
Panasa Reddy T 12233569 609 65 674
Ravi Shankar Reddy 11104297 595 76 671
Narayana Reddy K 12241065 589 82 671
This implies that out of 10 DSP posts in open competition, 4 were cornered by Reddy’s alone due to phenomenally high marks in the interview.
Here, it is to be mentioned that 2 Candidates belonging to SCs who scored more in written than all the Reddy’s mentioned above, got selected under reservation quota with interview marks of 43 and 13.5, i.e a median of 28.25 marks out of 90!
Umamaheshwar B (SC) 12212942 616 43 659
Samayjan Rao Ch (SC) 10606097 616 13.5 629.5
4. In the case of RTO: 2 vacancies in Open competition
Two candidates belonging to the BCs made it in the open even though they were awarded marks of 28 and 67, i.e. a median of 47.5 out of 90 as they scored very high marks in the written… 678 and 637 respectively.
1.Chandrasekhar Goud(BC-B) 12232100 678 28 706
2.Siva Lingaiah C (BC-B) 12210534 638 67 705
There was no competition here as OC candidates… esp. Reddy’s got DC posts with interview marks of 85 and 75, i.e. a median of 80, i.e. close to 90% of 90 marks. It has to be noticed that they got less marks in written than Mr. Chandrasekhar Goud and Mr. Siva Lingaiah C
1.Venkata Ramana Reddy 11209318 635 85 720
2.Prabhakar Reddy 11004313 634 75 709
In effect, the BC candidates got selected in Open competition as RTO only because they missed out on becoming Deputy Collector in Open competition !
Here it is to be mentioned that a BC candidate got selected as CTO by default as he missed out on becoming a DC and that too in open competition.
Madhu Babu K (BC-B) 20102402 634 62 696
5. In the case of DSP (jails): 5 vacancies in open competition,
2 candidates belonging to BCs got selected in Open even though they were given just 21 and 60 marks in the interview, i.e., a median of 40.5.
1.Rajeshwara Rao K (BC-D) 10300512 628 21 649
2.Giridhar Ravula (BC-B) 12202133 589 60 649
Here, it is to be mentioned that Mr. Rajeshwara Rao K (BC-D) got selected as DSP jails in the open by default because people (shown below) who got lesser marks than him in the written got selected as DSP, CTO in the open competition.
DSPs
Koti Reddy Nandyala 12203647 610 85 695
Panasa Reddy T 12233569 609 65 674
Ravi Shankar Reddy 11104297 595 76 671
Narayana Reddy K 12241065 589 82 671
CTOs
1.Arvind Reddy 11400057 622 70 692
2.Jitender Reddy 12202403 602 83 685
3.Raghunadha Reddy 20929096 602 78 680
The median of all the above Reddy candidates is 77, i.e. 85.55% of 90 marks.
If this is the case regarding the plum posts of DC, DSP, CTO and RTO, imagine what it could’ve been in other posts such as Asst. Accounts, Officers, Asst. Treasury Officers, Deputy Registrars and the least preferred service of MPDO.
BCs
1.Shiva Lingaiah Chettipally (BC-D) 12203120 687 32 719
2.Venkateshwarulu Vasan (BC-D) 12228599 643 64 707
3.Chandrasekhar Goud(BC-B) 12232100 678 28 706
4.Siva Lingaiah C (BC-B) 12210534 638 67 705
5.Madhu Babu K (BC-B) 20102402 634 62 696
6.Shashidhara Chary (BC-B) 12229049 605 78 683
7.Seshadri T (BC-B) 11200018 600 78 678
8.Nagarjuna Rao (BC-A) 10500775 622 51.5 673.5
9.Naga Jyothi Dasari (BC-D) 10708932 596 60 656
10.Rajeshwara Rao K (BC-D) 10300512 628 21 649
11.Giridhar Ravula (BC-B) 12202133 589 60 649
12.Gangadhar Reddy (BC-D) 10601169 649 21 670
The median of the marks scored in written by BC candidates is 635.5 out of 900, while the median of interview marks is 52.75 out of 90, i.e. 58.6%.
Reddy’s
1.Venugopal Reddy 12216921 657 73 732
2.Vinay Krishna Reddy 12241876 666 55 721
3.Venkata Ramana Reddy 11209318 635 85 720
4.Prabhakar Reddy 11004313 634 75 709
5.Koti Reddy Nandyala 12203647 610 85 695
6.Panasa Reddy T 12233569 609 65 674
7.Ravi Shankar Reddy 11104297 595 76 671
8.Narayana Reddy K 12241065 589 82 671
9.Arvind Reddy 11400057 622 70 692
10.Jitender Reddy 12202403 602 83 685
11.Raghunadha Reddy 20929096 602 78 680
The median of the marks scored by Reddy candidates in written is 620.1 out of 900, whereas in interview the median of the Reddy’s is 75.4, i.e a phenomenal 83.79%.
It is to be mentioned that no Public Service Commission in India hardly awards more than 80% to any candidate. Then how is it that the median of the Reddy’s itself is close to 84%?
BCs who got selected in the open competition scored on an average 15.4 marks (635.5-620.1) more than those Reddy’s who got selected in the Open.
However, when it comes to the interview, Reddy’s were awarded on an average 22.65 (75.4-52.75) marks more than the BC candidates.
What kind of justice is it when BC candidates who could have made it in the open to DC and DSP posts were forced to make it in the open to posts like CTO and RTO ?
SCs
DSP posts
Umamaheshwar B (SC) 12212942 616 43 659
Samayjan Rao Ch (SC) 10606097 616 13.5 629.5
With regard to SC candidates, the Median of the written exam of the candidates selected to DSP posts was 616, whereas the median in the interview was 28.25.
Whereas for the Reddy’s who got selected to the posts of DSP, the median of the written exam was 600.75 and the median of the interview marks of the Reddy’s was 77 out of 90, i.e., an unimaginable 85.55%.
It is clear that, though SCs scored 15.25 (616-600.75) marks more on an average than the Reddy candidates, they were awarded a mind-blowing 48.75 (77-28.25) marks less on an average than their Reddy counterparts in the interviews.
In the case of MPDO please refer to the marks range in another attachment wherein, 37 OC candidates were awarded interview marks in the range of 75-85, whereas only 16 BC candidates were awarded marks in that range.
Similarly, 35 OCs are in the range of 65-75, whereas 30 BCs are in the same range.
Even though OCs scored heavily in the interviews, as many as 29 BCs made it in the open competition for MPDOs… it is to be mentioned that it is the least preferred Group-1 post.
To give you an idea as many as 84 of the 237, i.e. more than 35% of the posts are lying unoccupied even after more than 3 years.
Out of 7 posts in open competition, two candidates belonging to BC-D made it to DC in the open competition even though they were awarded 32 and 64 marks in the interview… that’s a median of 48.
1.Shiva Lingaiah Chettipally (BC-D) 12203120 687 32 719
2.Venkateshwarulu Vasan (BC-D) 12228599 643 64 707
However, the Reddy candidates who made it to the DC posts were awarded marks 73, 55, 83, 75 in the interview… that is a median of 72 out of 90 which is 80% of the interview marks.
1.Venugopal Reddy 12216921 657 73 732
2.Vinay Krishna Reddy 12241876 666 55 721
3.Venkata Ramana Reddy 11209318 635 85 720
4.Prabhakar Reddy 11004313 634 75 709
The Cut off in open competition (7 vacancies) for DC posts is 707 which was achieved by:
Hanumantha Rao M 12256687 657 50 707
Venkateshwarulu Vasan (BC-D) 12228599 643 64 707
However, Mr. Chandra Shekar Goud who scored 678 marks in the written , i.e. 2nd highest overall… got only 28 marks in the interview and a total of 706 and got RTO in open competition.
Chandrasekhar Goud(BC-B) 12232100 678 28 706
It has to be noted that, he could have made it as a DC and that too in the open competition , if he had got even 30 marks in the interview.
2. In the case of CTO, out of 8 vacancies in the Open Competition
4 candidates belonging to BC-B made it in the open competition even though they were awarded marks of 62, 78, 78, 51.5, i.e. a median of 67.
Madhu Babu K (BC-B) 20102402 634 62 696
Shashidhara Chary (BC-B) 12229049 605 78 683
Seshadri T (BC-B) 11200018 600 78 678
Nagarjuna Rao (BC-A) 10500775 622 51.5 673.5
However, 3 Reddy’s made it as CTO with interview marks of 70, 83, 78, i.e. a median of 77, i.e., 86% marks out of 90
1.Arvind Reddy 11400057 622 70 692
2.Jitender Reddy 12202403 602 83 685
3.Raghunadha Reddy 20929096 602 78 680
In the case of CTO Open competition (women), 1 BC candidate made it in the open even though she secured 60 marks out of 90 in the interview.
Naga Jyothi Dasari (BC-D) 10708932 596 60 656
Whereas, candidates belong to OC, made it with interview marks of 67, 80, 73, i.e. a median of 73.33 (81% of 90)
Sumathi G 11201373 597 67 664
Hema Indukuri 10801981 575 80 655
Mangala Deepti 12209330 583 73 656
3. In the case of DSP Cat-II (10 Vacancies in the open)
A candidate belonging to the BCs got selected in the open competition although he was awarded only 21 marks in the interview.
Gangadhar Reddy (BC-D) 10601169 649 21 670
If he had secured 59 marks in the interview, he would have got selected as a DC in the open competition. Even if he had to claim reservation, he would have become a DC had he got just 27 marks in the interview.
However, 4 Reddy’s got selected even though they secured less marks than him in the written with interview marks of 85, 65, 76, 82, i.e. a median of 77.(i.e. 86% of 90). Please note that Narayana Reddy K scored a full 60 marks less than Gangadhar Reddy (BC-D) in the written.
Koti Reddy Nandyala 12203647 610 85 695
Panasa Reddy T 12233569 609 65 674
Ravi Shankar Reddy 11104297 595 76 671
Narayana Reddy K 12241065 589 82 671
This implies that out of 10 DSP posts in open competition, 4 were cornered by Reddy’s alone due to phenomenally high marks in the interview.
Here, it is to be mentioned that 2 Candidates belonging to SCs who scored more in written than all the Reddy’s mentioned above, got selected under reservation quota with interview marks of 43 and 13.5, i.e a median of 28.25 marks out of 90!
Umamaheshwar B (SC) 12212942 616 43 659
Samayjan Rao Ch (SC) 10606097 616 13.5 629.5
4. In the case of RTO: 2 vacancies in Open competition
Two candidates belonging to the BCs made it in the open even though they were awarded marks of 28 and 67, i.e. a median of 47.5 out of 90 as they scored very high marks in the written… 678 and 637 respectively.
1.Chandrasekhar Goud(BC-B) 12232100 678 28 706
2.Siva Lingaiah C (BC-B) 12210534 638 67 705
There was no competition here as OC candidates… esp. Reddy’s got DC posts with interview marks of 85 and 75, i.e. a median of 80, i.e. close to 90% of 90 marks. It has to be noticed that they got less marks in written than Mr. Chandrasekhar Goud and Mr. Siva Lingaiah C
1.Venkata Ramana Reddy 11209318 635 85 720
2.Prabhakar Reddy 11004313 634 75 709
In effect, the BC candidates got selected in Open competition as RTO only because they missed out on becoming Deputy Collector in Open competition !
Here it is to be mentioned that a BC candidate got selected as CTO by default as he missed out on becoming a DC and that too in open competition.
Madhu Babu K (BC-B) 20102402 634 62 696
5. In the case of DSP (jails): 5 vacancies in open competition,
2 candidates belonging to BCs got selected in Open even though they were given just 21 and 60 marks in the interview, i.e., a median of 40.5.
1.Rajeshwara Rao K (BC-D) 10300512 628 21 649
2.Giridhar Ravula (BC-B) 12202133 589 60 649
Here, it is to be mentioned that Mr. Rajeshwara Rao K (BC-D) got selected as DSP jails in the open by default because people (shown below) who got lesser marks than him in the written got selected as DSP, CTO in the open competition.
DSPs
Koti Reddy Nandyala 12203647 610 85 695
Panasa Reddy T 12233569 609 65 674
Ravi Shankar Reddy 11104297 595 76 671
Narayana Reddy K 12241065 589 82 671
CTOs
1.Arvind Reddy 11400057 622 70 692
2.Jitender Reddy 12202403 602 83 685
3.Raghunadha Reddy 20929096 602 78 680
The median of all the above Reddy candidates is 77, i.e. 85.55% of 90 marks.
If this is the case regarding the plum posts of DC, DSP, CTO and RTO, imagine what it could’ve been in other posts such as Asst. Accounts, Officers, Asst. Treasury Officers, Deputy Registrars and the least preferred service of MPDO.
BCs
1.Shiva Lingaiah Chettipally (BC-D) 12203120 687 32 719
2.Venkateshwarulu Vasan (BC-D) 12228599 643 64 707
3.Chandrasekhar Goud(BC-B) 12232100 678 28 706
4.Siva Lingaiah C (BC-B) 12210534 638 67 705
5.Madhu Babu K (BC-B) 20102402 634 62 696
6.Shashidhara Chary (BC-B) 12229049 605 78 683
7.Seshadri T (BC-B) 11200018 600 78 678
8.Nagarjuna Rao (BC-A) 10500775 622 51.5 673.5
9.Naga Jyothi Dasari (BC-D) 10708932 596 60 656
10.Rajeshwara Rao K (BC-D) 10300512 628 21 649
11.Giridhar Ravula (BC-B) 12202133 589 60 649
12.Gangadhar Reddy (BC-D) 10601169 649 21 670
The median of the marks scored in written by BC candidates is 635.5 out of 900, while the median of interview marks is 52.75 out of 90, i.e. 58.6%.
Reddy’s
1.Venugopal Reddy 12216921 657 73 732
2.Vinay Krishna Reddy 12241876 666 55 721
3.Venkata Ramana Reddy 11209318 635 85 720
4.Prabhakar Reddy 11004313 634 75 709
5.Koti Reddy Nandyala 12203647 610 85 695
6.Panasa Reddy T 12233569 609 65 674
7.Ravi Shankar Reddy 11104297 595 76 671
8.Narayana Reddy K 12241065 589 82 671
9.Arvind Reddy 11400057 622 70 692
10.Jitender Reddy 12202403 602 83 685
11.Raghunadha Reddy 20929096 602 78 680
The median of the marks scored by Reddy candidates in written is 620.1 out of 900, whereas in interview the median of the Reddy’s is 75.4, i.e a phenomenal 83.79%.
It is to be mentioned that no Public Service Commission in India hardly awards more than 80% to any candidate. Then how is it that the median of the Reddy’s itself is close to 84%?
BCs who got selected in the open competition scored on an average 15.4 marks (635.5-620.1) more than those Reddy’s who got selected in the Open.
However, when it comes to the interview, Reddy’s were awarded on an average 22.65 (75.4-52.75) marks more than the BC candidates.
What kind of justice is it when BC candidates who could have made it in the open to DC and DSP posts were forced to make it in the open to posts like CTO and RTO ?
SCs
DSP posts
Umamaheshwar B (SC) 12212942 616 43 659
Samayjan Rao Ch (SC) 10606097 616 13.5 629.5
With regard to SC candidates, the Median of the written exam of the candidates selected to DSP posts was 616, whereas the median in the interview was 28.25.
Whereas for the Reddy’s who got selected to the posts of DSP, the median of the written exam was 600.75 and the median of the interview marks of the Reddy’s was 77 out of 90, i.e., an unimaginable 85.55%.
It is clear that, though SCs scored 15.25 (616-600.75) marks more on an average than the Reddy candidates, they were awarded a mind-blowing 48.75 (77-28.25) marks less on an average than their Reddy counterparts in the interviews.
In the case of MPDO please refer to the marks range in another attachment wherein, 37 OC candidates were awarded interview marks in the range of 75-85, whereas only 16 BC candidates were awarded marks in that range.
Similarly, 35 OCs are in the range of 65-75, whereas 30 BCs are in the same range.
Even though OCs scored heavily in the interviews, as many as 29 BCs made it in the open competition for MPDOs… it is to be mentioned that it is the least preferred Group-1 post.
To give you an idea as many as 84 of the 237, i.e. more than 35% of the posts are lying unoccupied even after more than 3 years.
Very very high marks
ABNORMALLY HIGH
Name of the candidate HT No. Marks Obtained TOTAL
450 50 500
1.Neeraja Sriyapu Reddy 22205860 291 48 339
2.Soujanya Rao 20402063 299 48 347
3.Yadiah Nimma (ST) 22282965 303 48 351
4.Kranthi Boda (BC-A) 22203577 304 48 352
5.Ram Prasad Mandagiri (BC-B) 20702209 319 48 367
6.Naveen Marrapu (BC-D) 22287672 318 47 365
7.Pradeep Kumar M 22206413 325 47 372
8.Narahari Rao Ravipati 22205499 327 47 374
9.Narender Tadisen 21401044 331 47 378
10.Venkat Reddy Koppula 22212793 349 47 396
11.Madhusudhan Reddy Y 21201108 357 47 404
12.Manemma Macha (SC) 22204738 268 46 314
13.Venkata Lakshmi Potturi 21400493 301 46 347
14.Swarna Latha K (BC-D) 22211898 305 46 351
15.Venkata Durga Bhavani Allu 22281233 308 46 354
16.Srinivasa Rao Pinniti (BC-D) 90300003 317 46 363
17.Somashekar Chennuri (BC-B) 22277201 321 46 367
18.Rama Krishna Vendrapu (BC-D) 20201732 324 46 370
19.Dasaratha Rami Reddy K 22285162 324 46 370
20.Srinivasa Rao M (BC-D) 20222612 326 46 372
21.Eeshwara Reddy Katappagari 21200496 321 46 367
22.Obulanaidu S 22205943 326 46 372
23.Nagarjuna Reddy G 22108581 326 46 372
24.Ahmad Shaik (BC-B) 22107243 328 46 374
25.Venkata Prasad Gollamuri 22212937 328 46 374
26.Mohana Rao T (BC-B) 22204975 330 46 376
27.Syam Prakash Reddy M 21014380 334 46 380
28.Mahipal Kurella 22204576 334 46 380
29.Srikrishna D.Garaga 22210388 339 46 385
30.Shaheeda Begum Md. (BC-B) 22209329 341 46 387
31.Gowri Shankara Rao G (BC-D) 20200618 343 46 389
32.Srinivasu M 22210953 348 46 394
33.Sirisha Kunadhi Raju 20615906 302 45 347
34.Veera Prasad G (BC-D) 22212621 308 45 353
35.Venkat Reddy Y 22212785 324 45 369
36. Subba Reddy G 22111119 348 45 393
37.Madhuri Mulugu 20600657 342 45 387
38.Chennaiah K (BC-B) 20912622 341 45 386
39.Pulla Reddy V 22206721 358 45 403
40.Sridevi Vandanapu 22261518 301 45 346
41.Krishna Reddy Male 22100509 335 45 380
42.Vishalakshi Chowdermet (BC-B) 22213989 279 45 324
43.Siva Subrahmanyam P 20702888 330 45 375
44.Raghavendranath C (BC-B) 22206895 307 45 352
45.Srinivas Reddy S 22211194 329 45 374
46.Chandra Lekha Reddy K 22264710 289 45 334
47.Adinarayana Reddy M 20700025 329 45 374
48.Narsi Reddy Gummitha 22205755 325 45 370
49.Radha Naga Padmaja Duggudurthi (BC-A) 20201629 252 45 297
50.Nagalakshmi Tummala 20401084 313 45 358
51.Sudershanam B BC-B 22279051 321 45 366
52.Shivaram Cheganti SC 22209595 293 45 338
53.Prabhakara Rao M (SC) 22206374 336 45 381
54.Krishna Kanth M 20701084 336 45 381
55.Anuradha K Budhavarapu (BC-B)22200459 285 45 330
56. Jayramanaidu Madamanchi 22202809 334 45 379
57.Leela Rani Kota (BC-B) 21011960 297 45 342
58.Sujatha Gajavelli (BC-B) 22211409 277 45 322
59.Vardhanadevi Polanki (BC-B) 21101474 283 45 328
60.Subrahmanyam Muppalla 22211168 328 45 373
61.Pranaheetha Devi G BC-A 22206480 286 44 330
62.Ashok Reddy Y 22200663 338 44 382
63.Jyothi Lakshmi Devi P (BC-B) 21000510 300 44 344
64.Narsi Reddy S 22108692 326 44 370
65.Aparna K 20200094 329 42 371
66.Maheshwar Reddy B 22204567 356 44 400
67.Anupama Muktheswaram (BC-A) 21200127 288 43 331
68.Srilatha Ganta 21701311 340 43 383
69.Suma Thalluri 21701439 318 44 362
70.Uma Rani P 21614543 306 44 350
71.Suvarna P (BC-D) 20308836 324 40 364
72.Venkatesh N (SC) 22281803 316 43 359
73.Anand Kumar P (BC-D) 22200186 332 42 374
74.Suresh Kumar Kollu 22211743 370 43 413
75.Devadas M (SC) 20700543 319 43 362
76.Rajeswari M (BC-D) 20230913 318 42 360
77.Rajender G (BC-A) 22207118 327 42 379
78.Lakshmi V.Namala (SC) 20402725 299 42 341
79.Rajender Reddy N 22207135 347 44 391
80.Sharmila Muttineni 22209469 318 43 361
81.Susheela Konda Gadapa 22211806 310 42 352
82.Ganesh Guntipalli 22201966 342 44 386
83.Rama Lakshmi V.K. (BC-D) 20202961 328 42 370
84.Karimulla Shareif 20500633 321 42 363
85.Venkata Krishna Bokka(BC-B) 21609290 313 43 356
86.Ramaiah Boyapati 22207562 331 43 374
87.NV Raju Gadiraju 22270304 334 44 378
88.Kasaiah Jakkampoodi (BC-A) 21700380 310 40 350
89.Naveen Enumula (SC) 22287675 303 43 346
90.Archana Reddy Edulla 22113574 299 42 341
91.Naga Laxmi Kollu 22205161 331 44 375
92.Radhika Telu (BC-D) 20220285 293 43 336
93.Ramesh Babu Vipparala (SC) 22207853 314 40 354
94. Suresh Kumar Andela (SC) 22211715 301 43 344
95.Bhima Rao G (SC) 22201175 324 44 368
96.Upadhyayanjaneya Satyanarayana 22280416 332 44 376
97.Ravi Sekhar Kumar Yendamuri (BC-A)22208228 341 44 385
98.Venkata Surya Yella Rao 20515151 373 40 413
99.Bala Subrahmanyam G 22200800 351 42 393
100.Venkata Satish Kota 22292154 351 42 393
101.Venkata Ramana Naik R (ST) 21001762 337 43 380
102.Satish Reddy Kalleda 22209109 325 44 369
103.Naga Vara Prasad Adapa 20516205 337 44 381
104.V. Vani Prasad Beela (BC-D) 20301045 331 44 375
105.Kanaka Giri Sastry N.P 22206108 341 44 385
106.David Varaprasad Pamula (SC) 20900210 311 40 351
107. Kalavathi Balepogu 21100426 267 40 317
108.Lakshmidevi K (BC-B) 20600606 283 42 325
109.Prabhakar Reddy B V 22206363 347 40 387
110.Venkata Ramana Rao B (BC-D) 20801555 320 42 362
111.Leela Rani B 20701242 328 43.5 371.5
112.Sivamma P (BC-A) 21215722 269 44 313
113.Sujatha Pujari 21101363 312 42 354
114.Nagarjuna Uppa (BC-B) 22295589 331 40 371
115.Venugopal Reddy Gantla 22213559 335 40 375
116.Nagalakhsmi Ranga 22205230 295 43 338
117.Lakshmi Kodamanchili (BC-B) 20201002 275 44 319
118.Jai Bheem R (SC) 20200706 315 43 358
120.Padmaja Ambati 20717414 311 44 355
121.Venkata Ramesh Nallem 20502659 342 40 382
122.Jairam Satish Babu Rowthu (BC-D)20517421 318 40 358
123.Srinivas Javvadi 22207746 335 40 375
124.Sowjanya Chekka (BC-A) 22259045 245 40 285
125.Sri Kanaka Devi Mendu 22210334 300 42 342
126.Srinivas Palli (BC-D) 22278082 320 44 364
127.Suresh Babu Allangi (ST) 20223036 300 40 340
128.Sivakumari Medikonda (SC) 20801119 271 44 315
129.Srinivasulu Reddy V 20901384 341 44 385
130.Venkata Rao Batchala (BC-D) 20801567 319 42 361
131.Leena A 22204158 301 42 343
132. Aruna Raprolu (BC-B) 20700199 320 44 364
133.Ramkrishna Maram 22207579 343 42 385
134.Brahmananda Reddy M 22264534 334 44 378
135.Vishwanatha Reddy G 22214034 333 44 377
136.Lakshmi D. Nagiri (BC-A) 22203909 313 44 357
137.Indira Banala (BC-B) 22202512 289 43 332
138. Venkata Suneelu T (BC-A) 22213101 339 44 383
139.Chenna Reddy L 22201549 333 42 375
140.Ramesh Reddy A 21201958 334 40 374
141.Venkata Subba Reddy C 22213081 332 40 372
142.Bhaskar M (BC-B) 21016857 310 44 354
143.Hari Krishna Vunnam 21200658 326 40 366
144.Sireesha Juluganti 22209741 318 43 361
145.Phanindra KVS 21301169 322 43 365
146.Srinivasulu Siragam (ST) 22278763 284 40 324
147.Naga Suneetha Rani Chakkera 22295534 282 42 324
148.Bhargava Reddy Patti 22201060 324 41 365
149.Chandrahas K (BC-B) 22201447 308 40 348
150.Satyanarayana Madamanchi 21202202 320 43 363
151.Durga Bhavani G 20509820 288 40 328
152.Venkateswar Reddy V 22281944 358 40 398
153.Kala Sagar T (SC) 22241120 315 42 357
154.Srinivasarao Gunugati 22210940 328 44 372
155.Rama Mohan Baththala 22207632 321 44 365
156.Shyamsundar Palapati (SC) 22276938 283 43 326
157.Karuna Kancherla 22267472 294 43 337
158.Ankama Rao Pilla (OH) 22200388 272 43 315
159.Vijaya Lakshmi Kavalakuntla 22213861 314 40 354
160.Dheeraj Reddy Sadhu 21016523
333 42 375
161.Sita Maha Lakshmi Ch 20615971 306 42 348
162.Sreelatha Meda 22277401 294 42 336
163.Srinivas Reddy T 22210717 326 42 368
164.Vahida Ravi (SC) 22208233 276 40 316
165.Veera Pallam Raju Villa 22212619 360 40 400
166.Venkata Ramana Reddy 21101598 332 40 372
In addition to the 166 candidates, 3 more were awarded marks in excess of 40 (their particulars haven't been furnished by the APPSC). In total, 169 were awarded 80% or more, i.e. 40 marks or more out of 50 in the interviews. This is unprecedented!
No Public Service Commission in India, including the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) awards more than 80% to even a single candidate.
This smacks of irregularities on a phenomenal scale.
Name of the candidate HT No. Marks Obtained TOTAL
450 50 500
1.Neeraja Sriyapu Reddy 22205860 291 48 339
2.Soujanya Rao 20402063 299 48 347
3.Yadiah Nimma (ST) 22282965 303 48 351
4.Kranthi Boda (BC-A) 22203577 304 48 352
5.Ram Prasad Mandagiri (BC-B) 20702209 319 48 367
6.Naveen Marrapu (BC-D) 22287672 318 47 365
7.Pradeep Kumar M 22206413 325 47 372
8.Narahari Rao Ravipati 22205499 327 47 374
9.Narender Tadisen 21401044 331 47 378
10.Venkat Reddy Koppula 22212793 349 47 396
11.Madhusudhan Reddy Y 21201108 357 47 404
12.Manemma Macha (SC) 22204738 268 46 314
13.Venkata Lakshmi Potturi 21400493 301 46 347
14.Swarna Latha K (BC-D) 22211898 305 46 351
15.Venkata Durga Bhavani Allu 22281233 308 46 354
16.Srinivasa Rao Pinniti (BC-D) 90300003 317 46 363
17.Somashekar Chennuri (BC-B) 22277201 321 46 367
18.Rama Krishna Vendrapu (BC-D) 20201732 324 46 370
19.Dasaratha Rami Reddy K 22285162 324 46 370
20.Srinivasa Rao M (BC-D) 20222612 326 46 372
21.Eeshwara Reddy Katappagari 21200496 321 46 367
22.Obulanaidu S 22205943 326 46 372
23.Nagarjuna Reddy G 22108581 326 46 372
24.Ahmad Shaik (BC-B) 22107243 328 46 374
25.Venkata Prasad Gollamuri 22212937 328 46 374
26.Mohana Rao T (BC-B) 22204975 330 46 376
27.Syam Prakash Reddy M 21014380 334 46 380
28.Mahipal Kurella 22204576 334 46 380
29.Srikrishna D.Garaga 22210388 339 46 385
30.Shaheeda Begum Md. (BC-B) 22209329 341 46 387
31.Gowri Shankara Rao G (BC-D) 20200618 343 46 389
32.Srinivasu M 22210953 348 46 394
33.Sirisha Kunadhi Raju 20615906 302 45 347
34.Veera Prasad G (BC-D) 22212621 308 45 353
35.Venkat Reddy Y 22212785 324 45 369
36. Subba Reddy G 22111119 348 45 393
37.Madhuri Mulugu 20600657 342 45 387
38.Chennaiah K (BC-B) 20912622 341 45 386
39.Pulla Reddy V 22206721 358 45 403
40.Sridevi Vandanapu 22261518 301 45 346
41.Krishna Reddy Male 22100509 335 45 380
42.Vishalakshi Chowdermet (BC-B) 22213989 279 45 324
43.Siva Subrahmanyam P 20702888 330 45 375
44.Raghavendranath C (BC-B) 22206895 307 45 352
45.Srinivas Reddy S 22211194 329 45 374
46.Chandra Lekha Reddy K 22264710 289 45 334
47.Adinarayana Reddy M 20700025 329 45 374
48.Narsi Reddy Gummitha 22205755 325 45 370
49.Radha Naga Padmaja Duggudurthi (BC-A) 20201629 252 45 297
50.Nagalakshmi Tummala 20401084 313 45 358
51.Sudershanam B BC-B 22279051 321 45 366
52.Shivaram Cheganti SC 22209595 293 45 338
53.Prabhakara Rao M (SC) 22206374 336 45 381
54.Krishna Kanth M 20701084 336 45 381
55.Anuradha K Budhavarapu (BC-B)22200459 285 45 330
56. Jayramanaidu Madamanchi 22202809 334 45 379
57.Leela Rani Kota (BC-B) 21011960 297 45 342
58.Sujatha Gajavelli (BC-B) 22211409 277 45 322
59.Vardhanadevi Polanki (BC-B) 21101474 283 45 328
60.Subrahmanyam Muppalla 22211168 328 45 373
61.Pranaheetha Devi G BC-A 22206480 286 44 330
62.Ashok Reddy Y 22200663 338 44 382
63.Jyothi Lakshmi Devi P (BC-B) 21000510 300 44 344
64.Narsi Reddy S 22108692 326 44 370
65.Aparna K 20200094 329 42 371
66.Maheshwar Reddy B 22204567 356 44 400
67.Anupama Muktheswaram (BC-A) 21200127 288 43 331
68.Srilatha Ganta 21701311 340 43 383
69.Suma Thalluri 21701439 318 44 362
70.Uma Rani P 21614543 306 44 350
71.Suvarna P (BC-D) 20308836 324 40 364
72.Venkatesh N (SC) 22281803 316 43 359
73.Anand Kumar P (BC-D) 22200186 332 42 374
74.Suresh Kumar Kollu 22211743 370 43 413
75.Devadas M (SC) 20700543 319 43 362
76.Rajeswari M (BC-D) 20230913 318 42 360
77.Rajender G (BC-A) 22207118 327 42 379
78.Lakshmi V.Namala (SC) 20402725 299 42 341
79.Rajender Reddy N 22207135 347 44 391
80.Sharmila Muttineni 22209469 318 43 361
81.Susheela Konda Gadapa 22211806 310 42 352
82.Ganesh Guntipalli 22201966 342 44 386
83.Rama Lakshmi V.K. (BC-D) 20202961 328 42 370
84.Karimulla Shareif 20500633 321 42 363
85.Venkata Krishna Bokka(BC-B) 21609290 313 43 356
86.Ramaiah Boyapati 22207562 331 43 374
87.NV Raju Gadiraju 22270304 334 44 378
88.Kasaiah Jakkampoodi (BC-A) 21700380 310 40 350
89.Naveen Enumula (SC) 22287675 303 43 346
90.Archana Reddy Edulla 22113574 299 42 341
91.Naga Laxmi Kollu 22205161 331 44 375
92.Radhika Telu (BC-D) 20220285 293 43 336
93.Ramesh Babu Vipparala (SC) 22207853 314 40 354
94. Suresh Kumar Andela (SC) 22211715 301 43 344
95.Bhima Rao G (SC) 22201175 324 44 368
96.Upadhyayanjaneya Satyanarayana 22280416 332 44 376
97.Ravi Sekhar Kumar Yendamuri (BC-A)22208228 341 44 385
98.Venkata Surya Yella Rao 20515151 373 40 413
99.Bala Subrahmanyam G 22200800 351 42 393
100.Venkata Satish Kota 22292154 351 42 393
101.Venkata Ramana Naik R (ST) 21001762 337 43 380
102.Satish Reddy Kalleda 22209109 325 44 369
103.Naga Vara Prasad Adapa 20516205 337 44 381
104.V. Vani Prasad Beela (BC-D) 20301045 331 44 375
105.Kanaka Giri Sastry N.P 22206108 341 44 385
106.David Varaprasad Pamula (SC) 20900210 311 40 351
107. Kalavathi Balepogu 21100426 267 40 317
108.Lakshmidevi K (BC-B) 20600606 283 42 325
109.Prabhakar Reddy B V 22206363 347 40 387
110.Venkata Ramana Rao B (BC-D) 20801555 320 42 362
111.Leela Rani B 20701242 328 43.5 371.5
112.Sivamma P (BC-A) 21215722 269 44 313
113.Sujatha Pujari 21101363 312 42 354
114.Nagarjuna Uppa (BC-B) 22295589 331 40 371
115.Venugopal Reddy Gantla 22213559 335 40 375
116.Nagalakhsmi Ranga 22205230 295 43 338
117.Lakshmi Kodamanchili (BC-B) 20201002 275 44 319
118.Jai Bheem R (SC) 20200706 315 43 358
120.Padmaja Ambati 20717414 311 44 355
121.Venkata Ramesh Nallem 20502659 342 40 382
122.Jairam Satish Babu Rowthu (BC-D)20517421 318 40 358
123.Srinivas Javvadi 22207746 335 40 375
124.Sowjanya Chekka (BC-A) 22259045 245 40 285
125.Sri Kanaka Devi Mendu 22210334 300 42 342
126.Srinivas Palli (BC-D) 22278082 320 44 364
127.Suresh Babu Allangi (ST) 20223036 300 40 340
128.Sivakumari Medikonda (SC) 20801119 271 44 315
129.Srinivasulu Reddy V 20901384 341 44 385
130.Venkata Rao Batchala (BC-D) 20801567 319 42 361
131.Leena A 22204158 301 42 343
132. Aruna Raprolu (BC-B) 20700199 320 44 364
133.Ramkrishna Maram 22207579 343 42 385
134.Brahmananda Reddy M 22264534 334 44 378
135.Vishwanatha Reddy G 22214034 333 44 377
136.Lakshmi D. Nagiri (BC-A) 22203909 313 44 357
137.Indira Banala (BC-B) 22202512 289 43 332
138. Venkata Suneelu T (BC-A) 22213101 339 44 383
139.Chenna Reddy L 22201549 333 42 375
140.Ramesh Reddy A 21201958 334 40 374
141.Venkata Subba Reddy C 22213081 332 40 372
142.Bhaskar M (BC-B) 21016857 310 44 354
143.Hari Krishna Vunnam 21200658 326 40 366
144.Sireesha Juluganti 22209741 318 43 361
145.Phanindra KVS 21301169 322 43 365
146.Srinivasulu Siragam (ST) 22278763 284 40 324
147.Naga Suneetha Rani Chakkera 22295534 282 42 324
148.Bhargava Reddy Patti 22201060 324 41 365
149.Chandrahas K (BC-B) 22201447 308 40 348
150.Satyanarayana Madamanchi 21202202 320 43 363
151.Durga Bhavani G 20509820 288 40 328
152.Venkateswar Reddy V 22281944 358 40 398
153.Kala Sagar T (SC) 22241120 315 42 357
154.Srinivasarao Gunugati 22210940 328 44 372
155.Rama Mohan Baththala 22207632 321 44 365
156.Shyamsundar Palapati (SC) 22276938 283 43 326
157.Karuna Kancherla 22267472 294 43 337
158.Ankama Rao Pilla (OH) 22200388 272 43 315
159.Vijaya Lakshmi Kavalakuntla 22213861 314 40 354
160.Dheeraj Reddy Sadhu 21016523
333 42 375
161.Sita Maha Lakshmi Ch 20615971 306 42 348
162.Sreelatha Meda 22277401 294 42 336
163.Srinivas Reddy T 22210717 326 42 368
164.Vahida Ravi (SC) 22208233 276 40 316
165.Veera Pallam Raju Villa 22212619 360 40 400
166.Venkata Ramana Reddy 21101598 332 40 372
In addition to the 166 candidates, 3 more were awarded marks in excess of 40 (their particulars haven't been furnished by the APPSC). In total, 169 were awarded 80% or more, i.e. 40 marks or more out of 50 in the interviews. This is unprecedented!
No Public Service Commission in India, including the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) awards more than 80% to even a single candidate.
This smacks of irregularities on a phenomenal scale.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)