HC expresses dissatisfaction of report of IAs officer

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.