Bihar Sic Orders Termination Of Services Of Dse, Bdo, Panchayat Secretary And Mukhiya.
Posted 07-02-2008 at 08:07 PM by 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 30th of June 2008.
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 30th of June 2008.
Total Comments 1
Comments
-
Why other info commissioners are not acting in that responsible manner ?They are drawing salary out of public money.& hence must favour the aggreived public, not the erring govt officials.Posted 07-25-2008 at 11:07 PM by vijendra singh
Total Trackbacks 0
