It has been 8 years since the launch of the RTI act. An effort by the Indian government to bring integrity and transparency in the system. However, with the rise of inefficiency and the failure to respond by the RTI governing body makes one to wonder the credibility of the RTI act. One such instance that has triggered anguish amongst the student community is the recent TNPSC recruitment process.

The RTI queries raised by the applicants against the Tamilnadu Public Sevice Commision (TNPSC) selection process were not answered by the TNPSC office. They had raised 34 queries related to the selection of candidates (advertisement dated TNPSC ADVT NO: 298, dated  21-03-12) and even only four queries out of 34 queries suggested by SIC Tamilnadu were also not  addressed by the selection committee . The queries were pertaining to the selection procedure of the Drug inspector, Junior analyst and Phenyl assistant posts. The applicants were treated by unlawful acts in the TNPSC office. The appointment orders were rejected by the HOD, the reason being the complaint registered against Head of the department in the vigilance commission (DVAC) and the RTI queries against the non-transparency in the selection procedures. The other selection order of Mr. Sudalai kumar was also stopped by TNPSC. We found the non-transparency in other recruitments also related to chemistry graduate qualification in the last two years.

S Sudalai Kumar, a Senior research fellow at Hyderabad University says, “We require immediate attention and strong legal action against the concerned Head of the department,  Mr. Selvaraju, TNPSC (Director/Director in-charge, Drug Control, Tamilnadu) who has not followed the government rules and orders in the selection process and for mishandling the TNPSC selection interview committee and other TNPSC officials by force for his vested interests. The reason for this action is that the Secretary Mr. T. Udhayachandran, IAS and the Chairman Mr. R. Natraj, IPS were not able to perform their government duties properly with the government order for this selection. Even though these two higher officials helped me, Mr. Karunagaran and two more candidates. Mr. Marimuthu and few other eligible candidates were not allowed finally for the interview by the HOD with TNPSC officials involvement. So I want to file the case in Hon'ble court (Supreme court of India) for this injustice to the chemistry graduates and defend my rejection letter sent by the HOD.”

The applicants now want to proceed to Supreme court of India with their case, as the government officials may influence the decision at High Court . Only final choice left is with CB-CID for the transparency in the selection, as they have tried all the below commissions of  india:
1. Tamilnadu Public Service Commission,

2. Tamilnadu Chief Minister Cell,

3. State Information Commission (Tamilnadu),

4. Central Information Commission,

5. National Human Rights Commission-Chairperson,

6. Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (Tamilnadu),

 7. Hon'ble Chief Justice of India,

8. State and Central Vigilance Commission,

9. Hon'ble President of India and

10. Hon'ble Prime Minister of India).

(Note. My petition to the Chief Justice of India in registered post is disappeared from the Indian postal services departmernt and so this mail to supremecourt@nic.in contain that soft copy and also registered in Hon'ble President Office).

Thank you,

Attachments with this mail,

 1.RTI application (14-06-12)
2.RTI first appeal (17-07-12)
3. Second appeal/complaint (15-08-12)
4.Letter to the Hon'ble CM (03-09-12)

 5.Letter to the CIC (10-10-12)
5.Letter to the DVAC (24-10-12)
6.Letter to the NHRC (25-12-12)
7.Letter to the Hon'ble CJI (27-12-12)
8.SIC's final decision (05-12-12)
9. Letter from CIC (07-12-12)

10.Call letter received from the Secretary, TNPSC (06-06-12)

Ref. files 
Honorable President office,PRSEC/E/2012/21668,

State information commission Tamilnadu SIC 39338/SCIC/Enquiry/2012,

Directorate of vigilance and ant-corruption DVAC 47467/2012/TNPSC/HQ, 47604/2012/TNPSC/CC-I

Central information commission CIC/SM/Dy.No.175098, 160584/2012 and 166472/12,

Hon'ble CM office Tamilnadu TN-CM-E/241900/2012, E 9512 and 3282/M3/2013-1.
Online pet no. 2012/702208/VO,

TNPSC Memo. No. 
5359/OTD-A1/2010-06.06.2012 and 11-01-13, and 1204/OTD-A1/2013-18-03-13,

National Human Rights Commission NHRC case no. 230/22/13/2013/OC, 82/22/0/2013/OC and online diary no.129040,

Central Vigilance Commission 909/2013/Vigilance 2-CVC

Indian postal services CPT/SPO HCD 2013-14/1-05-04-13 GCB/7-11/12-postal dept

    E-mail to all Hon'ble officials in India 15th May 2013 To supremecourt@nic.insclsc@nic.incovdnhrc@nic.inionhrc@nic.ins.mishra@nic.intnsja.tn@nic.inmigsociety@gmail.comusgrievance@rb.nic.insecy.president@rb.nic.injpshah50@yahoo.co.inpbala@vsnl.comyogimpsingh@gmail.comcmcell@tn.gov.inmanmohan@sansad.nic.inpmosb@nic.insic@tn.nic.injmg.vc@nic.inbddirectorate@gmail.compgsectiondop@gmail.commuthuchemophile@gmail.comkaruiitm@gmail.comcoetnpsc.tn@nic.incs@tn.gov.in 

 

Sincerely,

 

S. Sudalai Kumar 
Senior Research Fellow
R.No.119, NRS Annexe
Prof C R Rao Road
University of Hyderabad
HYDERABAD - 500 046
INDIA.