Bihar Sic Orders Termination Of Services Of Dse, Bdo, Panchayat Secretary And Mukhiya

[bahl_ajay]

This is not a news but the success story of a friend of mine from a Bihar village who fought the corrupt practices of the administrative set up who conspired to ensure that she could not get the job of Primary School Teacher of the Village Panchayat, Jajua.
The facts of this case are as follows :
1. The applicant who is wife of a serving Defence Personnel applied for the job of Primary School Teacher of the Village Panchayat Jajua. She had completed one year of training against the two years training, she was undergoing. She hoped to complete the two years before the actual date of appointment.
2. She was treated as an applicant under trained category and was rejected. Her request, that she should be allowed to complete her training before she actually accepts the appointment, was not considered. On the ground that there is no trained applicant another candidate who was untrained was appointed in May, 07. My friend had a better claim than the appointed candidate under Untrained category also. This was ignored. Her RTI application was discouraged and delayed. The DSE did all he could to se that no corrective action was taken in time. After the RTI application the wrongly appointed candidate was quietly asked to resign. On the insistence of a peroper reply by the SIC an enquiry was conducted by the BDO on the Collector’s order. The applicant was told that she has not been considered as she did not possess two years training. She is now being verbally told that now that she has two years training she should apply for the next recruitment.
3. The entire administrative set up had conspired to ensure that she could not be considered either under the untrained category or under the trained category till the closure of the appointment procedure for the then current round of appointments. The departmental notification does not specify two years training as on the date of application. This has been deliberately overlooked so as to discriminate against the applicant.
4. The District Magistrate who was the less guilty of those involved, has nonetheless being insensitive in not raising the necessary questions. While the Mukhia and the Panchayat Sevak appear to have been tha obvious perpetrators and beneficiaries of the irregularities, the BDO and the DSE have encouraged the irregularities and protected the perpetrators.

Exercising the powers vested with the Commission u/s 19(8)(a) of the RTI Act with the preamble of the said Act thereof, the State Info Commission directed the following action to be taken:
a. The Chief Secretary get the matter enquired into by the Secretary, HRD of an official in the HRD Department not below Special Secretary.
b. As according to the result of the enquiry if found necessary the Chief Secretary instruct the Secretary, DPAR to take such action as required to record warning to the District Magistrate for his insensitivity.
c. As according to the result of the enquiry if found necessary the Chief Secretary instruct the Secretary HRD to initiate action against the DSE Muzaffarpur towards the termination of his services.
d. As according to the result of the enquiry if found necessary the Chief Secretary instruct the Secretary, DPAR to initiate action against the BDO, Katra towards the termination of his services.
e. As according to the result of the enquiry if found required, the Chief Secretary instruct the Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department to take action towards the termination of the services of the concerned Panchayat Secretary and towards the removal of the concerned Mukhiya in accordance with law.
f. The Chief Secretary inform the Commission of the results of the enquiry and the action initiated/taken if any, by the 30^th of June 2008.

[jps50]

Very encouraging news. Kindly put scanned copy of the order if possible or at least number and date of decision of BIC on this site.

[colnrkurup]

The Order stipulate for action by 30 June 2008 which is already over. We are keen to know the action taken and further development on the issue Kindly post them if possible.

[bahl_ajay]

My friend has gone to her home town in Bihar to check the details of implementation of the SIC orders. Will be back with more info on this topic as soon as I get updated in this matter.

Dear Jps

The case No is 1398 Smt Neelu Jha against Higher Education Department, Mujaffarpur, Bihar. Will put up scanned copy of the order in a day or two possibly along with the outcome of the implementation instructions

[colnrkurup]

This is an eye-opener for those who indulge in maladministration but not capable of doing it. The issue involved does not wound round RTI. The fact of the case is that the department called for application for appointment of Teacher. They did not specifically called for Trained Techer.Your friend is one of the applicant. She is not a Trained Teacher. Undergoing traing is not a qualification but that aspect may or may not be considered as an added qualification purely at the descretion of the appointing authority . She is not selected but some one else is selected. There is nothing wrong. There is absolutely no regulation laying down that undergoing traing is a qualification and such persons should be considered in appointment to posts for which training could be useful when they have not made any such notification when calling in.. One should remember that since the aspect of training is not mentioned in the notification, undergoing training or even possession of qualification of Trained teacher does not make her entitled for the job of teacher.

This is a case of involvement of corruption When the case is cought all got panicky. Had they stuck to their original stand nothing shoud have happened. They have every right to appoint anyone who is in possession of the qualification notified.

I do not know as to what information she gained through RTI and how did it help. There was no need of relieving the Teacher employed. The department should have stuck to their claim that the interview found the candidate they selected was the candidate most suitable for the post. I just could not find as to how the SIC could order an enquiry of all the issues stated above. The duty of the SIC is to ensure that the information sought is provided and not to enter into other merrits of the case.

[bahl_ajay]

Dear Col Sir,

The only purpose that RTI Act served here was bringing out the fact that the QR of having completed two years training prior to applying for the post was not prescribed as a pre requisite for applicants.

It was only included afterwards to form a basis for rejection of the application of my friend.

If you go thru the decision it clearly states that i quote "On the ground that there is no trained applicant another candidate who was untrained was appointed in May, 07. My friend had a better claim than the appointed candidate under Untrained category also. This was ignored. Her RTI application was discouraged and delayed. The DSE did all he could to se that no corrective action was taken in time. After the RTI application the wrongly appointed candidate was quietly asked to resign"

The final outcome of the action taken by the Education Dept on the decision of SIC is still awaited as nothing has been received in writing till date from any of the departments.

Had the other candidate been genuine, it would not have quit that job. The very fact that the recruitment process was not fair enough

[colnrkurup]

So long as the notification did not contain the requirement of "Training" as a required qualification for the appointment of teacher, one year's trainging or 2 years traing or training qualification or not possessing the training qualification has absolutely no bearing on the appointment. It was foolishness or guilt consciousness which made the present teacher to quit the job. Had they been bold or had they been clean there was absolutely no requirement of her quitting the job.

[bahl_ajay]

Originally Posted by colnrkurup

Had they been bold or had they been clean there was absolutely no requirement of her quitting the job.

This is the very purpose RTI acomplishes.

"Guilt has very quick ears to an accusation"
- Wordsmith

[Keshav Prasad]

In my view the action is still inconclusive. It is not clear whether the information required under the RTI Act by the lady was actually made available to her or not. SIC is there to ensure that the required information is made available to the applicant if the information is not classified and protected under the RTI Act. I have my doubts whether the SIC is actually empowered or authorised under the Act to direct its power towards disciplinary action such as removal from service. This matter needs to be examined in detail at appropriate level in the government as also in the legal fraternity. I am sorry if my views on the matter upsets the general jubilation of the members.