DEPUTY COLLECTORS
Zone* S.No Name Comm HT No Written Int Total
R 1 J VENKATA MURALI BC-A @ OC 11845959 474 69 543
R 2 S RAMA SUNDAR REDDY OC 11841617 469 70 539
T 3 SATYA SHARADA DEVI M OC 11816039 479 56 535
T 4 NARAYANA REDDY OC 11864567 481 53 534
R 5 S HARISH REDDY OC 11840022 473 59 532
A 6 G RAVI ST 11839784 471 56 527
R 7 V VEERA BRAHMAIAH BC-B 11105286 459 67 526
A 8 LAYA MADDURI SC @ OC 11801517 451 63 514
A 9 ADARI SHYAM PRASAD BC-D 10405795 460 52 512
T 10 NIKHILA K OC 11830802 464 46 510
T 11 AISHA MASARAT KHANAM OC 11500668 442 67 509
A 12 G RAMESH KUMAR SC 10202714 436 67 503
A 13 KANDULA SNEHA SC 11860036 439 63 502
R 14 P SAMPATH KUMAR SC 11809574 447 54 501
A 15 RONANKI KURMANATH BC-A 10211081 432 65 497
A 16 RAJA KUMARI G BC-A 10103504 435 55 490
A 17 BANDI NAVYA BC-D 11829255 427 58 485
T 18 S SANGEETA SC 11845134 421 59 480
T 19 SHAIK YASMEEN BASHA BC-E 11834915 417 45 462
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICERS
T 1 RAVI KANURI OC 11600237 469 57 526
A 2 RAVI KANTH CHAKKA OC 11802421 464 56 520
T 3 RAJA KRISHNA C BC-D @ OC 11801215 464 46 510
R 4 P SOMASEKHARA REDDY OC 11809658 461 48 509
A 5 V PARADESI NAIDU BC-D @ OC 11861053 452 57 509
A 6 SOWMYA N OC 10610074 454 54 508
A 7 P KAVITA RAO OC 10215152 463 45 508
R 8 T SUNITHA OC 11818588 449 59 508
R 9 P JAYASANKAR OC 11005953 451 56 507
T 10 S KRISHNA CHAITANYA OC 12203142 443 64 507
A 11 B RAGHAVA S MURTHY OC 10604726 442 65 507
A 12 M SWAPNA DEVI OC 11817441 449 57 506
A 13 HARSHAVARDHAN AB BC-B 11003509 461 43 504
T 14 T SRINIVAS BC-B 11505123 445 57 502
A 15 SIBHI CHAKRAVARTHY S BC-D 10207251 469 32 501
A 16 LANYA BABY NATASHA T BC-B @ OC 10601190 457 44 501
A 17 GALI MURALI KRISHNA BC-D 11801750 452 48 500
R 18 B VIJAYA LAKSHMI OC 11819639 441 55 496
A 19 RUPA SOWMYA K OC 11802882 436 58 494
A 20 LALITHA T OC 11857177 457 36 493
A 21 APARNA K OC 10210566 429 64 493
T 22 G AMRUTHA ST 11839725 421 66 487
A 23 D SATISH BC-D 11817319 436 47 483
R 24 R MASDHUSUDANA REDDY BC-A 11804686 435 47 482
A 25 K SWARNA LATHA BC-D 11806318 425 57 482
R 26 K SAILAJA SREE BC-B 11201093 437 43 480
R 27 JANGAM NEERAJA SC 11810729 416 57 473
T 28 N SRIDHAR SC 11608972 415 53 468
A 29 BHASKARA VALLI P SC 11835535 424 43 467
T 30 VENU GOPAL RAO K BC-D 11800741 421 44 465
T 31 S RAJANI SC 11841180 415 44 459
A 32 R VENKATA PADMAJA BC-A 10211088 414 45 459
A 33 SHAIK ZAHEER BC-E 10902461 423 35 458
A 34 P SRILATHA SC 10900758 387 68 455
ASST. PROHIBITION & EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT
MULTI ZONE- I
T 1 A ANIL KUMAR REDDY OC 11001180 429 63 492
A 2 MEDIKONDA MANOHA BC-C 11836051 415 34 449
MULTI ZONE – II
R 3 PRANAVI P BC-B @ OC 11818232 413 48 461
A 4 V RENUKA BC-D 11820374 395 59 454
MULTI ZONE – III
A 5 SURJITH SINGH N OC 11832565 448 44 492
T 6 V VIVEK OC 11861250 435 52 487
A 7 P RAMACHANDRA RAO BC-A 10102875 433 43 476
A 8 V RAMA KRISHNA SC 11836829 414 48 462
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR
R 1 G SUNITHA SC 11838952 411 58 469
DIVISIONAL FIRE OFFICER
A 1 T UDAY KUMAR OC 11815734 434 48 482
R 2 S KRISHNA CHAITANYA OC 11832388 426 56 482
A 3 G SREENIVASULU OC 11838613 427 54 471
A 4 R GNANASUNDARAM BC-D 10900979 424 45 469
R 5 E SAMULU BC-A 11300319 405 56 461
T 6 PRASANNA KUMAR BC-C 11813272 402 46 448
T 7 PAPAIAH V SC 11702750 398 44 442
T 8 B SUDHAKAR RAO SC 11862216 404 36 440
A 9 MD ABDUL QADIR BC-E 11818690 343 56 399
JEELANI
DISTRICT REGISTRAR A.P. REGN. SERVICE
T 1 SD TWINKLE JOAN BC-C @ OC 12003956 477 28 505
A 2 LAKSMI NARAYANA B BC-B 11828064 440 59 499
A 3 GOWRI SESHA KALYANI P OC 11829575 430 59 489
A 4 G BALA KRISHNA ST 11853738 427 48 475
A 5 KIRAN KUMAR V SC 10706697 398 59 457
NL 6 M SUBHASHINI SC 11818768 400 43 443
A 7 N MADHAVI VH 11836488 371 38 409
ASST. AUDIT OFFICER
ZONE- I
A 1 PAWAN KUMAR KONDA OC 10210472 427 65 492
A 2 SWATHI M OC 10102587 434 55 489
A 3 K GANGARAJU BC-B 10104402 429 52 481
A 4 SANKARA RAO P ST 11814629 385 26 411
T 5 MADHUMOHAN Y HH 10609518 333 38 371
ZONE- II
A 6 SUBBA REDDY G OC 10401244 429 57 486
A 7 LAKSHMI KUMAR M OC 11828105 427 59 486
A 8 KRISHNA MOHAN B BC-D 10604551 407 55 462
A 9 B VENKATA TIRUPANYAM SC 10410940 403 54 457
A 10 P NIRUPAMA BC-A 11856481 378 45 423
A 11 MOHD. REHMATULLA BC-E 10408113 373 43 416
ZONE- III
A 12 SREEVATHSA S OC 10904567 438 47
485
13 K PADMAJA OC 10602047 438 44 482
A 14 M THIRUPATHAIAH BC-B 10904389 419 47 466
A 15 B DHANALAKSHMI OC 10706452 411 52 463
A 16 M VIDYASAGAR ST 11839242 388 59 447
17 HH NO CANDIDATE
ZONE- IV
A 18 G JHANSI KARUNMAI SC 10604986 395 45 440
R 19 THOKALA HIMABINDU OC 10701454 414 67 481
R 20 G MANJULA BC-B 11848816 402 44 446
R 21 D K POORNIMA OC 11849167 410 48 458
R 22 S AJEYASIMHA RAO OC 11001827 426 54 480
R 23 P CHANDRASHEKARA SC 11809076 391 44 435
ZONE- V
T 24 N SHAM SUNDER BC-B @ OC 11609869 433 55 488
T 25 SANJAY KUMAR M BC-B @ OC 11818364 450 37 487
T 26 K SRINIVASA RAO OC 11506530 428 55 483
T 27 B SWAPNA BC-D @ OC 11502093 425 55 480
T 28 D SRINIVAS BC-B 11502849 424 44 468
T 29 M ARUNA BC-D @ OC 11603132 420 46 466
T 30 PRATIBHA D BC-D @ OC 11605681 409 53 462
A 31 M RAJA BABU SC 10506109 408 46 454
T 32 DEVENDAR A BC-A 11844308 396 45 441
T 33 SUDHEER KUMAR PORIKA ST 11604517 415 24 439
34 HH NO CANDIDATE
ZONE- VI
NL 35 BADRINATH P OC 11831227 442 54 496
T 36 M RAM PRASAD OC 11809508 434 46 480
A 37 G JOSEPH KUMAR OC 10702848 427 53 480
T 38 M PARVATHALU BC-D @ OC 11853516 413 64 477
T 39 LAVANYA MURTHY OC 10211232 415 56 471
T 40 P PRABHAKAR BC-D 11837651 412 59 471
T 41 VENKATESHAM A SC 11816709 387 55 442
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
A 1 TEJ BHARATH N OC 11818755 474 58 532
R 2 P PARAMESHWAR REDDY OC 11850708 460 60 520
A 3 P JOSHUA BC-C @ OC 10603573 462 57 519
A 4 N MOHAN KRISHNA OC 10607357 449 55 504
R 5 LAKSHMI NARAYAN B BC-D @ OC 11828062 444 57 501
A 6 P IMTIYAZ KHAN OC 11811914 451 48 499
R 7 K M MAHESWARA RAJU OC 11840856 444 54 498
A 8 T PRABHAKAR BABU OC 11000712 440 56 496
T 9 KOLLU SURESH KUMAR OC 11859120 432 63 495
A 10 K SRINIVASA RAO BC-B @ OC 10206921 436 58 494
T 11 P SURESH BABU BC-B @ OC 11610250 439 52 491
T 12 D MURALIDHAR BC-B @ OC 11852098 446 44 490
T 13 GIRDHAR R BC-B @ OC 11820188 441 48 489
T 14 PRAVEEN KUMAR CHALLA OC 11400565 434 54 488
A 15 SREEDHAR S OC 10102027 432 56 488
R 16 YEDDULA VIJAY SC @ OC 11860163 421 67 488
T 17 C SRIDHAR BC-B @ OC 12202615 432 55 487
R 18 K TIRUMALESWAR REDDY OC HH 11007399 431 55 486
A 19 MURALI R BC-D @ OC 11839166 429 57 486
R 20 SVM KUMAR REDDY OC 11840258 426 59 485
21 M KURMA RAO BC-D @ OC 11805533 437 47 484
T 22 N SRIDEVI RAO OC 11854208 445 38 483
A 23 J RAMAMOHANA RAO BC-B @ OC 11823601 438 45 483
R 24 E ASHOK KUMAR BC-B 11200755 427 55 482
T 25 S CHAITANYA KUMAR BC-A 11808206 433 47 480
T 26 AGGADI BHASKAR BC-B 12201999 415 63 478
T 27 KOTHAPALLY NARASIMHA BC-B 11602939 452 25 477
A 28 SREEDHAR RAO S V BC-D 10901453 438 39 477
A 29 ADIREDDI RAMA DEVI BC-D @ OC 10205823 410 67 477
A 30 K EASHWAR RAO BC-B 11812072 420 54 474
T 31 SARITHA K G V BC-B @ OC 11856998 418 56 474
A 32 K CHAKRAVARTHI BC-B 10900634 414 60 474
A 33 KOGANTI SHILPAVALLI OC 10211190 409 63 472
T 34 K GUNA SHEKAR ST 11837325 432 39 471
T 35 S SREENIVAS BC-D 11824568 424 47 471
A 36 K CHOUDESWARI OC 11860226 413 58 471
A 37 SUPRAJA EDUPALLI OC VH 10900596 404 67 471
T 38 PULIGILLA RAVINDAR BC-D 11825609 443 27 470
T 39 K CHAMUNDESHWARI BC-B @ OC 11810494 423 47 470
A 40 R MENAKA OC 11005853 412 57 469
A 41 K V SRINIVASA RAO BC-A 10603875 406 63 469
R 42 K LAVANYA LAKSHMI OC 11862085 421 47 468
T 43 B SREE BALA DEVI SC @ OC 11817620 416 52 468
T 44 DESIDI SUNITHA OC 11820629 408 60 468
T 45 B RAJA MAHENDRA NAIK ST 11833434 441 24 465
A 46 ARAVIND BABU VOLETI BC-A 11831246 436 29 465
R 47 D HIMAVATHI OC 11841683 428 36 464
A 48 A SURESH BABU ST 10210931 406 58 464
A 49 LATA MADHURI K BC-D 11840800 409 54 463
T 50 D PRADEEP KUMAR ST 11817812 410 48 458
A 51 P VENKATARATNAM BC-B 10201964 412 44 456
A 52 POOJA I BC-B 10100383 410 45 455
T 53 C CHENNAIAH SC 11859589 408 47 455
T 54 SAI SRI B BC-B 11855813 390 65 455
A 55 K KRISHNA PRASANNA BC-A 10200304 418 33 451
T 56 P KARUNAKAR SC 11600924 395 55 450
A 57 K VENKATA LAKSHMI SC 11845955 399 49 448
A 58 MOKA SATTI BABU SC 11802686 384 64 448
A 59 KARIMULLA SHARIEF BC-E 10505366 389 57 446
A 60 P SRINIVAS SC 11831504 418 27 445
A 61 N ASHOK KUMAR SC 10603399 411 34 445
R 62 M RAJANI SC 11802224 397 47 444
T 63 LAVANYA NAIK JADAV P ST 12003282 378 66 444
T 64 INDIRA P BC-C 11849912 399 38 437
A 65 D KAVITHA SC 11801049 379 58 437
R 66 G CHANDANA DEEPTI SC 11812547 379 58 437
T 67 S V NAGA LAKSHMI SC 11843603 395 38 433
A 68 SHAIK SHAKEELA BANU BC-E 10208648 367 57 424
ASST. ACCOUNTS OFFICER/ ASST. TREASURY OFFICER
T 1 M SRINIVAS BC-B @ OC 11831521 442 46 488
T 2 BH PANDU RANGA SHARMA OC 12201281 442 45 487
T 3 A SRINIVAS KUMAR OC 11603136 448 35 483
T 4 G VENKATA REDDY OC 12205583 422 58 480
A 5 BALENENI KOMALA OC 11844935 447 29 476
A 6 PARVATHI D BC-B 10101721 422 44 466
R 7 B PARVATHY BC-A 11202901 393 55 448
T 8 D NEHA SC 11826493 405 28 433
A 9 C SURESH BABU OH 10803384 386 44 430
* A- ANDHRA REGION; R - RAYALASEEMA REGION; T- TELANGANA REGION.
COMPARISON OF INTERVIEW MARKS Group-I (2009)
RAYALASEEMA:
33 candidates got selected and the total marks secured by them in the interviews = 1809.
Therefore, the median marks scored by a candidate from RAYALASEEMA = 1809/33 = 54.8 marks out of 75.
In terms of percentage, 54.8/75*100 = 73.1 %
ANDHRA REGION:
93 candidates got selected and the total marks secured by them in the interviews = 4770.
Therefore, the median marks scored by a candidate from ANDHRA = 4770/93 = 51.3 marks out of 75.
In terms of percentage, 51.3/75*100 = 68.4 %
TELANGANA REGION:
65 candidates got selected and the total marks secured by them in the interviews = 3165.
Therefore, the median marks scored by a candidate from TELANGANA = 3165/65 = 48.69 marks out of 75.
In terms of percentage, 48.69/75*100 = 65 %
Difference in terms of percentage
Thus, the candidates belonging to the Rayalaseema region had, on an average, got 4.7% (73.1 -68.4) more marks as compared to candidates belonging to the Andhra region.
Whereas, candidates belonging to the Rayalaseema region had, on an average, got 8.1% (73.1 – 65) more as compared to candidates from the Telangana region !
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
PIL on Bandhs dt: 16-05-2010
To
Hon’ble Mr. Jus. S. H. Kapadia,
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,
The Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
Hon’ble Sir,
Sub :- Petition seeking a review of an earlier SC judgment that allowed bandhs-
request to accept as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)- Reg.
Sir, as you would be aware bandhs disrupt normal life and almost every one from all walks of life is affected. As public transport is cancelled, people are forced to either remain indoors or are stranded at a ‘no-man’s land’ against their free will. We keep hearing of instances where the sick could not reach the hospital on time resulting in loss of lives. Commercial establishments, grocery stores, vegetable markets and even medical shops are closed out of fear of violence putting legions of people to untold hardships. Educational institutes and offices are shut due to fear of violence and damage to property. The country as a whole, which is in its nascent stage of economic recovery, is held to ransom to the whims and fancies of a few individuals, which while causing great suffering to millions puts the country through huge financial losses.
Considering these facts Sir, i firmly believe that any action on the part of Political Parties and their affiliated associations to call for a bandh and as a consequence impose restrictions against the free will on the free movement of people; obstruct trade on a phenomenal scale, is in gross violation of the Fundamental Rights Viz., freedom of movement throughout the territory of India, right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, etc as specifically enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Hon’ble Sir, during the enforcement of the bandh, many anti-social elements resort to violence and damage public and private property. Political parties and their affiliated associations and any other organization, if aggrieved, can take recourse to alternative logical, rational means of protest, viz., petitioning the authorities concerned, waging a legal battle, etc, without putting the general public (infants, the sick and suffering inclusive) through untold hardships; causing pecuniary loss to millions of daily wage earners and deprive them of their livelihoods.
Hon’ble Sir, isn’t it ironical to note that, in numerous instances, the common man is put to such sufferings all in the name of a Party’s or an Organization’s fight for the cause/s of
the under-privileged and the disadvantaged sections of the society. Such acts question the pith and substance of the maxim, “democracy means the greater good of greater number of people.”
Hon’ble Sir, India’s history is replete with instances wherein, Political parties enforced the bandhs ruthlessly. Forced shutdown of social and economic activity backed by the implicit threat of violence is how bandhs are claimed to be ‘successful’. In most cases, political parties succeed in enforcing their call because people fear for their safety.
Hon’ble Sir, some of the causes that they claim to espouse may be genuine. Agreed. However, that should not allowed to be wielded as a free licence to coerce people to remain indoors, stall public transport and leave hundreds and thousands of people stranded, indulge in hooliganism, effect the livelihood of millions of daily wage earners, adversely effect the functioning of educational institutions, commercial establishments, medical facilities, etc. The list of sufferers is endless.
Hon’ble Sir, given these facts it was shocking to note that, and I quote from the Times of India e-paper dated 4th Feb’ 2009 which can kindly be accessed at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-does-a-U-turn-says-bandhs-OK-in-democracy/articleshow/4071588.cms
“The Supreme Court in the year 2009 termed bandhs as legitimate means of expressing people's feelings in a democracy, reversing a trend judiciary has followed since 1997 when it had come down hard upon political parties for causing inconvenience to the public by forcing shutdowns.
The Bench headed by CJI and comprising Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal observed that in a democratic country, everyone had the right to express their feelings: a remark that would be lapped up by political parties who never acquiesced to judiciary's stand against bandhs.
In the 1997 judgment, the Kerala HC had said, "No political party or organisation can claim that it is entitled to paralyse industry and commerce in the entire state or nation and is entitled to prevent the citizens not in sympathy with its viewpoint from exercising their fundamental right or from performing their duties for their own benefits or for the benefit of the state or the nation."
It added, "Such a claim would be unreasonable and could not be accepted as a legitimate exercise of a fundamental right by a political party or those comprising it." The order had met with thunderous applause from millions across the country.
Hon’ble Sir, I don’t mean to influence your judgment or understanding. Far from it Sir. However, I humbly request you kindly peruse the responses’ to that article. These were opinions expressed by well-meaning, educated people who have at their heart the all round development of our country
Hon’ble Sir, their views may kindly be taken in the right spirit and as supporting arguments and prayers for a review of the judgment favouring bandhs in India. Hon’ble Sir, kindly allow me the liberty to present some of the views for your kind perusal.
Abhijit Basu San Jose 04/02/2009 at 11:10 am
Bandh is not a freedom of expression, it is a freedom of oppression and hooliganism by political and religious organizations.
Piyush Mysore 04/02/2009 at 11:10 am
This decision comes as a bad omen for citizens of India who, disillusioned by the political brass have always looked up to the SC for assuaging their miseries. With due honor and respect for the CJI and the apex court… There is a difference between bandh and strike. The former is exercised by the political or ideological outfits in accordance with their own whims and prejudices, forcibly engulfing the people who does not empathize with their sentiments, are more a show of power that result in breakdown of law and order. Strike is done to promote once cause and in a lawful manner without making someone to consent by use of force. If our politicians are really worried about the welfare of people and want to dissent on certain issue why can't they take the route of Satyagrah. They won't as they won't get a chance to show case their power then. With this unfortunate decision the SC has set a wrong precedent and undone the good will it has garnered among the people.
EWRudradas Kochi 04/02/2009 at 11:04 am
This judgement is against the interest of the people and the country.Did the supreme court think about the rights of the individuals who were denied their freedom of movement during a bandh?
Ashok New York 04/02/2009 at 10:54 am
The judges need to clarify if the right to Bandh, also includes the right prevent another human from working to earn his livelihood under the threat of force and violence.
Sir, I humbly request you to kindly see the aforementioned opinions as expressions of genuine and well-meaning concerns.
Main Prayer:
Sir, I humbly request you to kindly consider this petition as a Public Interest Litigation as it calls into question and prays for the prevention of the violation of the Fundamental Rights of millions of our fellow Indians.
Sir, I humbly request you to kindly constitute a larger Constitutional Bench to review the earlier judgment as delivered by The Bench headed by the ex- CJI, Mr. Jus. K. G. Balakrishnan and comprising Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal which allowed bandhs.
Sir, I also humbly request you and pray that you kindly exercise the powers vested in you by the Article 32 of the Constitution of India and issue writ or writs and pass such other order or orders or directions, that you deem fit and necessary, and prevent the blatant, flagrant violation, by Political Parties, Organizations, Associations, etc in the name of bandhs and such other forms of protest, of the Fundamental Rights of our citizens as enshrined in Article 19 and other relevant Articles of our Constitution.
Thanking you Sir,
Yours sincerely,
(SUNAND P)
From:
Sunand P
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyd-8.
Hon’ble Mr. Jus. S. H. Kapadia,
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,
The Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
Hon’ble Sir,
Sub :- Petition seeking a review of an earlier SC judgment that allowed bandhs-
request to accept as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)- Reg.
Sir, as you would be aware bandhs disrupt normal life and almost every one from all walks of life is affected. As public transport is cancelled, people are forced to either remain indoors or are stranded at a ‘no-man’s land’ against their free will. We keep hearing of instances where the sick could not reach the hospital on time resulting in loss of lives. Commercial establishments, grocery stores, vegetable markets and even medical shops are closed out of fear of violence putting legions of people to untold hardships. Educational institutes and offices are shut due to fear of violence and damage to property. The country as a whole, which is in its nascent stage of economic recovery, is held to ransom to the whims and fancies of a few individuals, which while causing great suffering to millions puts the country through huge financial losses.
Considering these facts Sir, i firmly believe that any action on the part of Political Parties and their affiliated associations to call for a bandh and as a consequence impose restrictions against the free will on the free movement of people; obstruct trade on a phenomenal scale, is in gross violation of the Fundamental Rights Viz., freedom of movement throughout the territory of India, right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, etc as specifically enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Hon’ble Sir, during the enforcement of the bandh, many anti-social elements resort to violence and damage public and private property. Political parties and their affiliated associations and any other organization, if aggrieved, can take recourse to alternative logical, rational means of protest, viz., petitioning the authorities concerned, waging a legal battle, etc, without putting the general public (infants, the sick and suffering inclusive) through untold hardships; causing pecuniary loss to millions of daily wage earners and deprive them of their livelihoods.
Hon’ble Sir, isn’t it ironical to note that, in numerous instances, the common man is put to such sufferings all in the name of a Party’s or an Organization’s fight for the cause/s of
the under-privileged and the disadvantaged sections of the society. Such acts question the pith and substance of the maxim, “democracy means the greater good of greater number of people.”
Hon’ble Sir, India’s history is replete with instances wherein, Political parties enforced the bandhs ruthlessly. Forced shutdown of social and economic activity backed by the implicit threat of violence is how bandhs are claimed to be ‘successful’. In most cases, political parties succeed in enforcing their call because people fear for their safety.
Hon’ble Sir, some of the causes that they claim to espouse may be genuine. Agreed. However, that should not allowed to be wielded as a free licence to coerce people to remain indoors, stall public transport and leave hundreds and thousands of people stranded, indulge in hooliganism, effect the livelihood of millions of daily wage earners, adversely effect the functioning of educational institutions, commercial establishments, medical facilities, etc. The list of sufferers is endless.
Hon’ble Sir, given these facts it was shocking to note that, and I quote from the Times of India e-paper dated 4th Feb’ 2009 which can kindly be accessed at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-does-a-U-turn-says-bandhs-OK-in-democracy/articleshow/4071588.cms
“The Supreme Court in the year 2009 termed bandhs as legitimate means of expressing people's feelings in a democracy, reversing a trend judiciary has followed since 1997 when it had come down hard upon political parties for causing inconvenience to the public by forcing shutdowns.
The Bench headed by CJI and comprising Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal observed that in a democratic country, everyone had the right to express their feelings: a remark that would be lapped up by political parties who never acquiesced to judiciary's stand against bandhs.
In the 1997 judgment, the Kerala HC had said, "No political party or organisation can claim that it is entitled to paralyse industry and commerce in the entire state or nation and is entitled to prevent the citizens not in sympathy with its viewpoint from exercising their fundamental right or from performing their duties for their own benefits or for the benefit of the state or the nation."
It added, "Such a claim would be unreasonable and could not be accepted as a legitimate exercise of a fundamental right by a political party or those comprising it." The order had met with thunderous applause from millions across the country.
Hon’ble Sir, I don’t mean to influence your judgment or understanding. Far from it Sir. However, I humbly request you kindly peruse the responses’ to that article. These were opinions expressed by well-meaning, educated people who have at their heart the all round development of our country
Hon’ble Sir, their views may kindly be taken in the right spirit and as supporting arguments and prayers for a review of the judgment favouring bandhs in India. Hon’ble Sir, kindly allow me the liberty to present some of the views for your kind perusal.
Abhijit Basu San Jose 04/02/2009 at 11:10 am
Bandh is not a freedom of expression, it is a freedom of oppression and hooliganism by political and religious organizations.
Piyush Mysore 04/02/2009 at 11:10 am
This decision comes as a bad omen for citizens of India who, disillusioned by the political brass have always looked up to the SC for assuaging their miseries. With due honor and respect for the CJI and the apex court… There is a difference between bandh and strike. The former is exercised by the political or ideological outfits in accordance with their own whims and prejudices, forcibly engulfing the people who does not empathize with their sentiments, are more a show of power that result in breakdown of law and order. Strike is done to promote once cause and in a lawful manner without making someone to consent by use of force. If our politicians are really worried about the welfare of people and want to dissent on certain issue why can't they take the route of Satyagrah. They won't as they won't get a chance to show case their power then. With this unfortunate decision the SC has set a wrong precedent and undone the good will it has garnered among the people.
EWRudradas Kochi 04/02/2009 at 11:04 am
This judgement is against the interest of the people and the country.Did the supreme court think about the rights of the individuals who were denied their freedom of movement during a bandh?
Ashok New York 04/02/2009 at 10:54 am
The judges need to clarify if the right to Bandh, also includes the right prevent another human from working to earn his livelihood under the threat of force and violence.
Sir, I humbly request you to kindly see the aforementioned opinions as expressions of genuine and well-meaning concerns.
Main Prayer:
Sir, I humbly request you to kindly consider this petition as a Public Interest Litigation as it calls into question and prays for the prevention of the violation of the Fundamental Rights of millions of our fellow Indians.
Sir, I humbly request you to kindly constitute a larger Constitutional Bench to review the earlier judgment as delivered by The Bench headed by the ex- CJI, Mr. Jus. K. G. Balakrishnan and comprising Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal which allowed bandhs.
Sir, I also humbly request you and pray that you kindly exercise the powers vested in you by the Article 32 of the Constitution of India and issue writ or writs and pass such other order or orders or directions, that you deem fit and necessary, and prevent the blatant, flagrant violation, by Political Parties, Organizations, Associations, etc in the name of bandhs and such other forms of protest, of the Fundamental Rights of our citizens as enshrined in Article 19 and other relevant Articles of our Constitution.
Thanking you Sir,
Yours sincerely,
(SUNAND P)
From:
Sunand P
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyd-8.
Civilized Society?
Ours is one of the oldest civilizations in the world with a history of about 5000 years. We pride ourselves on the way we treat our guests… “ATHIDI DEVO BHAVAH”.
I am no fan of Mr. Jagan, but what happened during the course of his Odarpu Yatra esp. in Mahbubabad Railway Station is unacceptable to say the least. How can we claim ourselves to be civilized when rogue elements pelt stones on people esp. women; damage and destroy public property; escalate tensions, etc. I sincerely hope that such acts of hooliganism do not recur. (please refer to the PIL dt:16-05-2010 that has been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.)
The Constitution of India vide Article 19 (1) (d) specifically guarantees freedom of movement throughout the territory of India, right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The Freedom of movement is a Fundamental Right of every citizen of India. Thus, preventing a person from moving freely amounts to gross violation of the Fundamental Rights.
The agitators would have been well within their rights to hold, if aggrieved, protests by holding black flags, sporting black badges etc, but indulging in acts of violence cannot be condoned. Having said that, such non-violent acts may not have got the “footage” that violent acts ensure. Here the role of the 4th Estate has to be called into question.
Despite Mr. Jagan having had a hands-on experience as to how one would feel it his/ her Fundamental Right is violated as had happened in Group-I and Group-II interviews (2006), where-in the Fundamental Rights of the many candidates as provided for under Article 16 of our Constitution were trampled upon, it is rather unfortunate.
Article 16 provides for Equality of opportunity in matters of Public Employment irrespective of Caste, Creed, Sex, Region, Religion, etc.
Peaceful protests are most welcome, however, violent protests and bandhs have no place in a civilized society and a growing, developing economy like ours.
I am no fan of Mr. Jagan, but what happened during the course of his Odarpu Yatra esp. in Mahbubabad Railway Station is unacceptable to say the least. How can we claim ourselves to be civilized when rogue elements pelt stones on people esp. women; damage and destroy public property; escalate tensions, etc. I sincerely hope that such acts of hooliganism do not recur. (please refer to the PIL dt:16-05-2010 that has been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.)
The Constitution of India vide Article 19 (1) (d) specifically guarantees freedom of movement throughout the territory of India, right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The Freedom of movement is a Fundamental Right of every citizen of India. Thus, preventing a person from moving freely amounts to gross violation of the Fundamental Rights.
The agitators would have been well within their rights to hold, if aggrieved, protests by holding black flags, sporting black badges etc, but indulging in acts of violence cannot be condoned. Having said that, such non-violent acts may not have got the “footage” that violent acts ensure. Here the role of the 4th Estate has to be called into question.
Despite Mr. Jagan having had a hands-on experience as to how one would feel it his/ her Fundamental Right is violated as had happened in Group-I and Group-II interviews (2006), where-in the Fundamental Rights of the many candidates as provided for under Article 16 of our Constitution were trampled upon, it is rather unfortunate.
Article 16 provides for Equality of opportunity in matters of Public Employment irrespective of Caste, Creed, Sex, Region, Religion, etc.
Peaceful protests are most welcome, however, violent protests and bandhs have no place in a civilized society and a growing, developing economy like ours.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
IN THE JUDICATURE OF THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HYDERABAD
Between:
Sunand P,
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyd- 8. ---- PETITIONER
And
1. Dr. Y. Venkatarami Reddy,
Chairman, APPSC,
Nampally Hyderabad.
2. Mr. Venkat Reddy,
Member, APPSC,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. Mr. B. Ramakrishna Raju,
Member, APPSC,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
4. Mr. T. Bhadraiah,
Ex-Member, APPSC,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
5. Mrs. Renu Khosla,
Ex- Member, APPSC,
Nampally Hyderabad.
6. Shri Harpreet Singh (IAS)
Ex- Secretary, APPSC
Presently Managing Director of
A.P. Diary Development,
Hyderabad. --- RESPONDENTS
MATERIAL PAPER INDEX
S.No. Description of the documents Pages Annexure
1. Judgment copy of the Hon’ble 2 I
SCIC, APIC, Hyderabad
2. Covering letter given by the APPSC 2 II
3. Marks sheet of Group-I provided by 6 III
the APPSC under the RTI Act, 2005
4. E-version of a book written by 6 IV
Civil Services Toppers.
5. Marks sheet of Group-II provided 6 V
by the APPSC under the RTI Act,
2005
6. Marks copies of certain exams
conducted by the Tamil Nadu 6 VI
Public Service Commission.
7. Copies of Newspaper articles 6 VII
(Eenadu, Surya)alleging irregularities
in award of interview marks by the
Chairman and Members, APPSC.
8. Copies of Newspaper articles 2 VIII
(The Hindu) which shows MLAs’from TDP
and CPI submitting a memorandum to the
Hon’ble Governor of AP.
9. Compact Disc featuring a program telecast by
TV5, a reputed Telugu News channel, alleging
disproportionate assets owned by the Chairman.
Sir, I, Sunand P, R/o 28, Bal Reddy Nagar, Toli Chowki, Hyderabd-8, do solemnly swear and affirm that everything mentioned and enclosed along with this petition is true to the best of my knowledge.
Sir, it was only after a long drawn fight of over a year that I could have access to information regarding the Names, Community, Marks secured in the written exam and marks awarded in the interviews of the selected candidates. Even that was enabled only because the Hon’ble State Chief Information Commissioner, APIC directed the APPSC to furnish the information. (please refer to Annex. I). The APPSC furnished the information and it was delivered to me on the 3rd of March, 2010 (please refer Annex. II)
Sir, the analysis of the data pertaining to recruitments made by the APPSC under Notification No. 21/ 2003 to 312 plum Group-I posts, viz., Deputy Collector, Deputy SP, CTO, RTO, Municipal Commissioner, Dy. Registrar Co-op Societies, revealed shocking details.
Sir, it was shocking to note that the average marks of the selected candidates belonging to a particular community was 73 out of 90 marks, which in itself is more than 80%, while the average marks for OCs (other than that community) was a reasonable 64 out of 90 marks; and 60 for SCs, 60 for BCs and 53 for STs. (please refer to Annex III).
That’s not all Sir, an unbelievably high 136 out of 550 candidates (312 plum Group-1 posts plus 238 MPDO posts) were awarded marks equal to or more than 80% in the interviews, i.e. 72 or more out of 90. Further, a staggering 36 candidates were awarded 81 marks or more, i.e. in excess of 90% with the highest being 88 out of 90 HT No. 12219893, i.e., an unprecedented 98%.
Here it is pertinent to mention that, I am sure that you would be aware that the UPSC and other Public Service Commissions in India hardly, if ever, award more than 80% in the interview to any candidate. In a book titled ‘How to Crack Civil Services’ written by Civil Service Toppers which includes the All India Topper Mr. Mutyala Raju Revu in the year 2006, it is specifically mentioned that the interview marks for the UPSC are in the range of 50-240 out of 300 (please refer to Annex IV). In that year (2006), not even a single candidate scored more than 80% in the interviews, the highest being 231 out of 300.
Sir, in this regard, I humbly request you to call for records of interview marks awarded by the UPSC in the past (any reasonable span of time) and in the case of APPSC before the year 2005, i.e. in the instances of recruitments made before the incumbent Chairman and Members took charge. Sir, I believe that the comparison of the marks awarded by the UPSC and the erstwhile Interview Boards of the APPSC with those of the marks awarded in Group-I interviews conducted in the year 2006 would make the irregularities committed in the instant case crystal clear.
As if that’s not enough Sir, the discrimination shown towards candidates (some highly meritorious) claiming reservation is beyond belief. To quote a few examples, Sir :
As regards 312 plum posts of the Group-1 Services, viz. Dy. Collector, DSP, CTO, Municipal Commissioner, RTO, etc. 24 candidates were given less than 40 marks out of 90 marks in the interviews. Out of the 24 candidates, 14 belong to the BCs (i.e. 58%). Least marks (13 out of 90) were awarded to SC candidates.
But most striking is the case of Mr.Shiva Lingaiah Chettipally (BC-B) bearing HT No.12203120. He got a top score of 687 out of 900 in the written exam, but got only 32 in the interview taking his tally to 719 out of 990 and had to be content with 4th overall.
Similarly, Mr.Chandra Shekar Goud (BC-B) bearing HT No.12232100 secured 678 marks in the written (2nd highest ) but was awarded only 28 in the interview taking to total to 706. He missed the chance of becoming a Deputy Collector (DC) by 1 mark.
Similarly, Ms. Haritha Mundrathi bearing HT No. 12232473 who secured the highest written score (613) among the women Deputy Collectors. However, only 21 marks were awarded to her and she lost the opportunity of becoming a DC in the open category and had to claim reservation.
Similarly, Mr.Gangadhar Reddy (BC-D) bearing HT.No 10601169 scored 649 but was awarded only 21 in the interview. Someone who could have made it into DC in open competition had to settle for DSP.
Almost similar is the case of Mr.Narasimha Rao Ch (SC) bearing HTNo.10703131 who got a decent score of 598 but was awarded the least of all just 13 marks in the interview and had to settle for Assistant Audit Officer., though people who had scored lesser marks than him in the written got Dy.SP and that too in open competition.
Another incident relates to Mr.Samayjan Rao Ch (SC) bearing HT No.10606097 who secured 616 marks in written, i.e. joint 3rd highest among all the candidates selected for DSP post but only 13.5 in the interview. The combined tally now placed him on 21st position and he had to settle for the post of DSP under reservation quota
Thus, many reserved candidates who could have made it in the open competition by virtue of high marks in the written seem to have been slighted in the interviews. Thus, they had to claim reservation and lost the opportunity of making it in the open. In effect, many candidates who could have filled the vacancies that would have remained in the “reservation pool” had lost out on getting employment.
Sir, such blatant nepotism on one hand and the evident discrimination on the other hand is in gross violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution because Article 16 provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, etc.
Sir, as regards Group-II services, viz., posts like Dy. Tahsildar, ACTO, Excise S.I., Sub- Registrar, etc under Notification No. 10/ 2004, 169 out of 614 were awarded marks equal to or in excess of 40 out of 50 marks, i.e. 80%. Further, a staggering 60 candidates were awarded marks equal to or in excess of 45 out of 50, i.e. 90%. (Please refer to Annex. V)
Here it is significant to mention again that the UPSC or any other PSC, hardly, if ever, award more than 80% marks in an interview to any candidate. The TNPSC too does not award more than 80% marks to any candidate in the interviews (please refer to Annex. VI).
However, when it comes to shockingly low marks in the interviews for both Group-I and Group-II services, candidates belonging to BC, SC and ST communities invariably formed the overwhelming majority !
Sir, kindly refer to these statistics which pertain to those candidates who scored more than 250 out of 450 marks, i.e., more than 55% marks in the Group-II written exam. Out of the 73 candidates who were given 25 marks or less out of 50 marks in the interviews, 41 (i.e.56%) are BCs, 15 SCs, 10 STs, OCs making the rest (7). Sir, I have all the records pertaining to Group-I and Group-II recruitments made in the year 2006 and I would be most obliged to present them for your kind perusal.
Sir, the gross irregularities committed by the APPSC was highlighted by the print as well as the electronic media. Sir, another important point to note is that , out of the 11 posts of Deputy Collectors that were in open competition, 8 were bagged by candidates belonging to a particular community by virtue of phenomenally high marks in the interviews. .(please refer to Annex VII).
Sir, keeping in view the seriousness of the irregularities committed, the AP State Assembly, on the 27th of March, was adjourned over this issue and later MLAs from the TDP, the CPI submitted a memorandum to the Hon’ble Governor of AP (please refer to Annex VIII).
Sir, lakhs of people appear for the exams conducted by the APPSC for various posts. Such serious irregularity on the part of the powers that be raises questions on the fairness, objectivity of the selection process itself. Sir, only a thorough probe, without any further delay, can uncover the truth and only then will some amount of credibility and respectability be restored to the APPSC.
Sir, in addition to all this, a reputed Telugu News Channel, TV5 aired a special program alleging that the incumbent Chairman of the APPSC owns disproportionate assets (please refer to the CD that has been enclosed). Sir, I humbly request you to order a CBI enquiry to bring out the truth.
Prayer:
Sir, keeping in view the grave irregularities, I humbly pray and request you to exercise the powers vested in you by virtue of Article 226 of our Constitution and issue a writ of mandamus or issue any other directions or order or orders as you deem fit and necessary and call for records, from the APPSC, of the interview marks awarded by each Interview Board, separately, to all the candidates who appeared for the Group-I and Group-II interviews in the years 2006 and 2009. Sir, I request you to kindly also ask for marks assigned in the interview and reported in writing, individually, by each member of the Interview Board.
Sir, I humbly pray and request you to call for records of the interview marks awarded to Group-I and Group-II candidates by each Interview Board of the APPSC prior to 2005, i.e., before the incumbent Chairman and Members took charge so as to compare them with the marks awarded in Group-I and Group-II recruitments in the years 2006 and in 2009.
Sir, equally importantly, kindly exercise your powers and direct the UPSC to furnish interview marks awarded to Civil Services candidates (over any reasonable span of time that you deem fit) so that a comparison with the marks awarded by the APPSC would make the irregularities on the part of APPSC explicitly apparent.
Sir, I also humbly pray and request you to constitute a CBI enquiry to look into the allegations of corruption in recruitments and amassing of disproportionate assets by the incumbent Chairman, APPSC as reported by the News Channel TV5.
Regards,
(Sunand P)
HYDERABAD
Between:
Sunand P,
28, Bal Reddy Nagar,
Toli Chowki, Hyd- 8. ---- PETITIONER
And
1. Dr. Y. Venkatarami Reddy,
Chairman, APPSC,
Nampally Hyderabad.
2. Mr. Venkat Reddy,
Member, APPSC,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. Mr. B. Ramakrishna Raju,
Member, APPSC,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
4. Mr. T. Bhadraiah,
Ex-Member, APPSC,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
5. Mrs. Renu Khosla,
Ex- Member, APPSC,
Nampally Hyderabad.
6. Shri Harpreet Singh (IAS)
Ex- Secretary, APPSC
Presently Managing Director of
A.P. Diary Development,
Hyderabad. --- RESPONDENTS
MATERIAL PAPER INDEX
S.No. Description of the documents Pages Annexure
1. Judgment copy of the Hon’ble 2 I
SCIC, APIC, Hyderabad
2. Covering letter given by the APPSC 2 II
3. Marks sheet of Group-I provided by 6 III
the APPSC under the RTI Act, 2005
4. E-version of a book written by 6 IV
Civil Services Toppers.
5. Marks sheet of Group-II provided 6 V
by the APPSC under the RTI Act,
2005
6. Marks copies of certain exams
conducted by the Tamil Nadu 6 VI
Public Service Commission.
7. Copies of Newspaper articles 6 VII
(Eenadu, Surya)alleging irregularities
in award of interview marks by the
Chairman and Members, APPSC.
8. Copies of Newspaper articles 2 VIII
(The Hindu) which shows MLAs’from TDP
and CPI submitting a memorandum to the
Hon’ble Governor of AP.
9. Compact Disc featuring a program telecast by
TV5, a reputed Telugu News channel, alleging
disproportionate assets owned by the Chairman.
Sir, I, Sunand P, R/o 28, Bal Reddy Nagar, Toli Chowki, Hyderabd-8, do solemnly swear and affirm that everything mentioned and enclosed along with this petition is true to the best of my knowledge.
Sir, it was only after a long drawn fight of over a year that I could have access to information regarding the Names, Community, Marks secured in the written exam and marks awarded in the interviews of the selected candidates. Even that was enabled only because the Hon’ble State Chief Information Commissioner, APIC directed the APPSC to furnish the information. (please refer to Annex. I). The APPSC furnished the information and it was delivered to me on the 3rd of March, 2010 (please refer Annex. II)
Sir, the analysis of the data pertaining to recruitments made by the APPSC under Notification No. 21/ 2003 to 312 plum Group-I posts, viz., Deputy Collector, Deputy SP, CTO, RTO, Municipal Commissioner, Dy. Registrar Co-op Societies, revealed shocking details.
Sir, it was shocking to note that the average marks of the selected candidates belonging to a particular community was 73 out of 90 marks, which in itself is more than 80%, while the average marks for OCs (other than that community) was a reasonable 64 out of 90 marks; and 60 for SCs, 60 for BCs and 53 for STs. (please refer to Annex III).
That’s not all Sir, an unbelievably high 136 out of 550 candidates (312 plum Group-1 posts plus 238 MPDO posts) were awarded marks equal to or more than 80% in the interviews, i.e. 72 or more out of 90. Further, a staggering 36 candidates were awarded 81 marks or more, i.e. in excess of 90% with the highest being 88 out of 90 HT No. 12219893, i.e., an unprecedented 98%.
Here it is pertinent to mention that, I am sure that you would be aware that the UPSC and other Public Service Commissions in India hardly, if ever, award more than 80% in the interview to any candidate. In a book titled ‘How to Crack Civil Services’ written by Civil Service Toppers which includes the All India Topper Mr. Mutyala Raju Revu in the year 2006, it is specifically mentioned that the interview marks for the UPSC are in the range of 50-240 out of 300 (please refer to Annex IV). In that year (2006), not even a single candidate scored more than 80% in the interviews, the highest being 231 out of 300.
Sir, in this regard, I humbly request you to call for records of interview marks awarded by the UPSC in the past (any reasonable span of time) and in the case of APPSC before the year 2005, i.e. in the instances of recruitments made before the incumbent Chairman and Members took charge. Sir, I believe that the comparison of the marks awarded by the UPSC and the erstwhile Interview Boards of the APPSC with those of the marks awarded in Group-I interviews conducted in the year 2006 would make the irregularities committed in the instant case crystal clear.
As if that’s not enough Sir, the discrimination shown towards candidates (some highly meritorious) claiming reservation is beyond belief. To quote a few examples, Sir :
As regards 312 plum posts of the Group-1 Services, viz. Dy. Collector, DSP, CTO, Municipal Commissioner, RTO, etc. 24 candidates were given less than 40 marks out of 90 marks in the interviews. Out of the 24 candidates, 14 belong to the BCs (i.e. 58%). Least marks (13 out of 90) were awarded to SC candidates.
But most striking is the case of Mr.Shiva Lingaiah Chettipally (BC-B) bearing HT No.12203120. He got a top score of 687 out of 900 in the written exam, but got only 32 in the interview taking his tally to 719 out of 990 and had to be content with 4th overall.
Similarly, Mr.Chandra Shekar Goud (BC-B) bearing HT No.12232100 secured 678 marks in the written (2nd highest ) but was awarded only 28 in the interview taking to total to 706. He missed the chance of becoming a Deputy Collector (DC) by 1 mark.
Similarly, Ms. Haritha Mundrathi bearing HT No. 12232473 who secured the highest written score (613) among the women Deputy Collectors. However, only 21 marks were awarded to her and she lost the opportunity of becoming a DC in the open category and had to claim reservation.
Similarly, Mr.Gangadhar Reddy (BC-D) bearing HT.No 10601169 scored 649 but was awarded only 21 in the interview. Someone who could have made it into DC in open competition had to settle for DSP.
Almost similar is the case of Mr.Narasimha Rao Ch (SC) bearing HTNo.10703131 who got a decent score of 598 but was awarded the least of all just 13 marks in the interview and had to settle for Assistant Audit Officer., though people who had scored lesser marks than him in the written got Dy.SP and that too in open competition.
Another incident relates to Mr.Samayjan Rao Ch (SC) bearing HT No.10606097 who secured 616 marks in written, i.e. joint 3rd highest among all the candidates selected for DSP post but only 13.5 in the interview. The combined tally now placed him on 21st position and he had to settle for the post of DSP under reservation quota
Thus, many reserved candidates who could have made it in the open competition by virtue of high marks in the written seem to have been slighted in the interviews. Thus, they had to claim reservation and lost the opportunity of making it in the open. In effect, many candidates who could have filled the vacancies that would have remained in the “reservation pool” had lost out on getting employment.
Sir, such blatant nepotism on one hand and the evident discrimination on the other hand is in gross violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution because Article 16 provides for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment irrespective of caste, creed, sex, religion, etc.
Sir, as regards Group-II services, viz., posts like Dy. Tahsildar, ACTO, Excise S.I., Sub- Registrar, etc under Notification No. 10/ 2004, 169 out of 614 were awarded marks equal to or in excess of 40 out of 50 marks, i.e. 80%. Further, a staggering 60 candidates were awarded marks equal to or in excess of 45 out of 50, i.e. 90%. (Please refer to Annex. V)
Here it is significant to mention again that the UPSC or any other PSC, hardly, if ever, award more than 80% marks in an interview to any candidate. The TNPSC too does not award more than 80% marks to any candidate in the interviews (please refer to Annex. VI).
However, when it comes to shockingly low marks in the interviews for both Group-I and Group-II services, candidates belonging to BC, SC and ST communities invariably formed the overwhelming majority !
Sir, kindly refer to these statistics which pertain to those candidates who scored more than 250 out of 450 marks, i.e., more than 55% marks in the Group-II written exam. Out of the 73 candidates who were given 25 marks or less out of 50 marks in the interviews, 41 (i.e.56%) are BCs, 15 SCs, 10 STs, OCs making the rest (7). Sir, I have all the records pertaining to Group-I and Group-II recruitments made in the year 2006 and I would be most obliged to present them for your kind perusal.
Sir, the gross irregularities committed by the APPSC was highlighted by the print as well as the electronic media. Sir, another important point to note is that , out of the 11 posts of Deputy Collectors that were in open competition, 8 were bagged by candidates belonging to a particular community by virtue of phenomenally high marks in the interviews. .(please refer to Annex VII).
Sir, keeping in view the seriousness of the irregularities committed, the AP State Assembly, on the 27th of March, was adjourned over this issue and later MLAs from the TDP, the CPI submitted a memorandum to the Hon’ble Governor of AP (please refer to Annex VIII).
Sir, lakhs of people appear for the exams conducted by the APPSC for various posts. Such serious irregularity on the part of the powers that be raises questions on the fairness, objectivity of the selection process itself. Sir, only a thorough probe, without any further delay, can uncover the truth and only then will some amount of credibility and respectability be restored to the APPSC.
Sir, in addition to all this, a reputed Telugu News Channel, TV5 aired a special program alleging that the incumbent Chairman of the APPSC owns disproportionate assets (please refer to the CD that has been enclosed). Sir, I humbly request you to order a CBI enquiry to bring out the truth.
Prayer:
Sir, keeping in view the grave irregularities, I humbly pray and request you to exercise the powers vested in you by virtue of Article 226 of our Constitution and issue a writ of mandamus or issue any other directions or order or orders as you deem fit and necessary and call for records, from the APPSC, of the interview marks awarded by each Interview Board, separately, to all the candidates who appeared for the Group-I and Group-II interviews in the years 2006 and 2009. Sir, I request you to kindly also ask for marks assigned in the interview and reported in writing, individually, by each member of the Interview Board.
Sir, I humbly pray and request you to call for records of the interview marks awarded to Group-I and Group-II candidates by each Interview Board of the APPSC prior to 2005, i.e., before the incumbent Chairman and Members took charge so as to compare them with the marks awarded in Group-I and Group-II recruitments in the years 2006 and in 2009.
Sir, equally importantly, kindly exercise your powers and direct the UPSC to furnish interview marks awarded to Civil Services candidates (over any reasonable span of time that you deem fit) so that a comparison with the marks awarded by the APPSC would make the irregularities on the part of APPSC explicitly apparent.
Sir, I also humbly pray and request you to constitute a CBI enquiry to look into the allegations of corruption in recruitments and amassing of disproportionate assets by the incumbent Chairman, APPSC as reported by the News Channel TV5.
Regards,
(Sunand P)
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
RTI Application dt 20-04-2010
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)
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)