Business Standard: Madurai: Saturday, September 20, 2014.
The Madras
High Courtbench here today expressed "dissatisfaction" over the
report given by a senior IAS officer regarding appointment of watchmen and
sanitary staff in the Usilampatti Edcuation District and felt that the report
was not comprehensive one.
The Court had
last year directed the Government to hold an inquiry into the reported
appointments in the schools that were done based on recommendations of MLAs,
Ministers and ruling party office bearers.
The official
C V Sankar, Principal Secretary, in his report observed that selection appeared
to be have been done properly and the recommendations from political
functionaries had not influenced in the selection process and had been made
based on merits as per rules and regulations.
Justice S
Nagamuthu wondered why those who had given recommendation letters had not been
investigated.
Sankar in his
report submitted that it was not uncommon for some politicians to send
recommendation letters since they do so to help residents in their areas.
Though there were recommendations letters from political functionaries, the
selection for the posts of watchmen and sanitary workers appeared to have been
done properly, he said.
The court
wanted the government to find out whether the state's school education director
or anybody from that office had issued instructions to the DEO, Usilampatti to
make appointments on the basis of recommendation letters from the politicians
and what had happened to those letters, whether appointments were made based on
the merits or politicians' recommendations and alleged tampering of original
records.
Last year,
one K Ganesan of Thiruparankundram who was denied a posting filed a petition
before the high court bench contending that out of 28 appointments including
eight posts for watchmen and 20 sweeper posts in government high schools and
higher secondary schools, meritorious candidates had been placed only in 12
posts - two watchmen and 12 sweepers.
These
details, the petitioner had obtained under the RTI act and based on it, he
filed a petition.
When the
matter came up for hearing, the court had asked the education officials to
submit the original records pertaining to the RTI reply. But they said they
neither had it in hardware nor in software form. And hence, the court directed
the officer to probe this aspect too, but he failed to do it.