Chandigarh, May 22
The points, regarding the role of money in appointments in Punjab raised by Nisha Kaura, a reader of The Tribune from Ludhiana, have been taken note of as, according to reliable sources, Punjab Lokpal Justice DV Sehgal has not only indicted former Punjab Education Minister Tota Singh but also recommended the cancellation of all 100 selections of science mistresses on the complaint of Ms Nisha Kaura who had questioned the selection process.
Along with Mr Tota Singh, the former Education Secretary, Mr R.S. Sandhu, a senior IAS officer, Chairman of the Selection Committee, Mr Raj Singh Deol, and its four other members — Mr Rakesh Arora, Mr Hardev Singh, Mr Balwinder Singh and Ms Paramjit Kaur, have also been indicted by the Lokpal. Since all others except Mr Tota Singh, are public servants, employees of the State Government, the Lokpal has left it to the Government to decide the action against them.
According to sources, Justice Sehgal has sent copies of his 55-page report to the Punjab Governor, besides Ms Nisha Kaura, and others against whom he has made recommendations and observations.
Ms Nisha Kaura, now a celebrity, had raised doubts about the selection of teachers made by a committee set up by the Punjab Government. On her February 9 letter written to the then Punjab Chief Minister, addressing him as a “grandpa”, she had alleged that “she was not selected as a teacher despite her being a topper in M.Sc (Chemistry) with 83 per cent marks from Panjab University.”
The Tribune, published the letter in its columns twice. The letter obviously, made the authority sit-up and think.
She had also made a complaint to the Punjab Lokpal, who decided it yesterday. She appeared before the Lokpal first on January 15 and later on February 7 besides sending him other relevant documents etc through post.
Nisha Kaura had applied for the post of a science teacher for which an advertisement appeared in The Tribune on June 28 last year. She appeared before the selection committee on November 28 last
year. She appeared before the selection committee on November 28 last year and the result was declared on December 15. She did not find her name in the selection list though she, besides being a topper, had secured 71.25 per cent marks in B.Sc (Medical) and 72 per cent marks in B.Ed. Thereafter she complained against the selections to the Lokpal.
The Lokpal, according to sources, has came out with the conclusion that the committee to select science
teachers headed by Mr Raj Singh Deol, District Education Officer, Muktsar, was set up by violating the Punjab Government’s instructions issued vide circular dated December 5,1996. According to these instructions, the appointing authority, which the DPI (Schools), should head the selection committee set up to select science masters. No representative of the Personnel Department joined the Selection Committee. The Personnel Department refused to send its representatives for the reasons mentioned in their memo number 17029 dated November 12, 2001, to the effect that their representatives , who had been sent to such committees earlier, had reported that no significance was given to them and that all marks for interview were given by the chairman and members of the Education Department. The two other members of the committee were a stenographer of Sainik Welfare and other a clerk of the Punjab Welfare Department. But their duty was only to check the certificates of ex-servicemen. The head of the committee nominated two of his subordinates — Mr Balwinder Singh and Mrs Paramjit Kaur — as subject experts. Being subordinate of Mr Raj Singh Deol, they were not independent experts.
Moreover, the Punjab and Haryana High Court wide its judgement dated April 26, 2001 in case of Bhupinder Kaur and others versus State of Punjab case had instructed that two subject experts for each selection committee to set up for selection of teachers against ETT or JBT posts will be nominated by the Vice Chancellors of the Universities in Punjab. The order was passed by the Court to ensure fair selection as the government had withdrawn the posts of these teachers from the purview of the Punjab State Subordinate Services Selection Board and had decided to set up Departmental selection committees.
The Lok Pal has observed that similar criteria of appointing subject experts should have been adopted in case of selection of science mistresses as their posts have also been withdrawn from the purview of then
PSSB and selections to be made by a departmental selection committee. Mr Tota Singh, the Education Minister, failed to discharge his duty in not enforcing the directions of the High Court in case of science mistresses which was a higher category of posts than that of JBT and ETT teachers. There is, therefore, a prima facie case of inquiry into the conduct of Mr Tota Singh because on the material so far available, he left enough scope for manipulation, favourtism and discrimination for the Chairman of the Selection Committee.
The Lok Pal, according to sources, has further observed that Mr Tota Singh and Education Secretary, R.S. Sandhu, knowingly side stepped the High Court’s verdict in Bhupinder Kaur’s case and intentionally kept vague twin questions: who shall be the two subject experts and who shall nominate them and thus paved the way for Mr Raj Singh Deol, head of the selection Committee to have his hand-picked school teachers to include as subject experts on the selection panel set up for science mistresses.
Among the 100 successful candidates, 60 were from Ludhiana, Moga, Muktsar and Ferozepore districts? Only 40 from the remaining 13 districts. Mr Tota Singh belongs to Moga district. Mr Raj Singh Deol remained posted at Moga, Ferozepore and also at Muktsar.
During the course of inquiry, the Lok Pal, according to sources came across the fact that the selection committee awarded maximum marks in the interview to those candidates whom it wanted to select and minimum marks to those whom it wanted to keep out of the selection list. There were 85 marks of educational qualification and extracurricular activities and 15 marks for the interview. There was a set criteria for giving marks to the candidate from 85 marks and the selection committee had no discretion in this regard. Its discretion was to award marks to the candidates on the basis of their performance in the interview that was 15 marks.
Those who secured a total 62.01 or above marks were selected. The Lok Pal, according to sources, has found that in the interview only those 100 candidates got the maximum marks in the interview whose selection in all probability had already decided and other were awarded less marks to keep them out.
In his final findings, the Lok Pal has stated that “I hold Mr Tota Singh, a Publicman respondent, in the present case, was actuated in the discharge of his functions, as such publicman by collateral and extraneous considerations and, thus, by improper motive. He is therefore, held guilty of having committed misconduct within the meaning of Section 3(1)(a) of the Punjab Lok Pal Act.
The Lok Pal has recommended that applications of all 500 candidates ,who were short listed on the basis of merit for interview, should be scrutinised by the Director Public Instructions and they should be recalled for interview before the state level selection committee. The Selection Committee should be headed by the appointing authority and should include representatives of Personnel, etc. It should have independent subject experts.
The Lok Pal’s order in Nisha Kaur’s case can have wide repercussions. There were several other committees set by the Department to select master cadre teachers. These were not headed by the appointing authority. Moreover those committees also did not have independent experts. Those selections might come under review as a sequel to the Lok Pal’s order in Ms Kaura’s case.
