To,
The Commissioner &
Secretary & Ex-officio
Director
School Education.
Nagaland, Kohima.
Sub:- Representation requesting the cancellation/revocation of the SIT report on Bogus appointment and to conduct fresh enquiry by an independent expert committee and/or requisition all available posts of teachers and to conduct impartial selection examination against the vacancies.
Sir
With due respect, the undersigned, for and on behalf of all the aggrieved teachers, beg to state on the subject cited above, as follows:
1. That immediately after the publication in the local dailies of the list of the four categories of teachers based on the SIT report, we had applied for the copies of the detailed findings of the SIT in the said four lists. However, we were supplied with the SIT report on the bogus and genuine teachers only and till date, despite our repeated requests, the department continues to withhold from us the detailed findings of the SIT on the list of the so called doubtful appointees on the specious and evasive excuse that the case of the doubtful category of teachers is still under investigation. It may be mentioned herein that only on 03.08.2010 we had applied for the copy of the SIT report on the doubtful appointees and in reply to our application, vide the letter dated 28.08.2010, we were furnished only with the list that was published in the local daily shorn of the findings of the SIT against each teacher. On our insistence that what we had applied for was the copy of the SIT report itself, we were orally informed that there is no such detailed report on the doubtful category of1eachers submitted by the SIT. In the meantime, the teachers in the list of the so called doubtful category are being allowed to draw their salary ‘till further orders’, i.e., indefinitely, while, on the other hand, the salary of those of us who have been put under the so called bogus list arbitrarily, is being withheld. From the said action, it can be abundantly inferred that the Department is not transparent in the instant case and that it has no intention of doing justice.
2. That it is also a fact that after the SIT report was published in the local dailies, on our enquiry as to what were the procedures and criteria adopted by the SIT in classifying the appointees into 4 (four) categories, the department had informed us that forensic tests were conducted to determine the authenticity of the appointment but when we sought the detailed forensic report the same was denied to us.
Subsequently, we have come into possession a copy of the summary of the report submitted by the SIT and it is verified from the said report that no such expert tests were conducted by the SIT in arriving at the findings. The fact that no forensic test, expert opinion, or verification from educational institutions were taken by the SIT while categorizing the appointees, can be ascertained from the paragraph 6 of the said report. The relevant portion, in this regard, are the sub-paragraphs (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xi), which are quoted below, as follows:
v) The SIT during the physical verification of teachers in all the 34 DEO’s and DIS’s establishments, have also verified 546 teachers’ whose names were not found in the incumbency list as furnished by the respective establishments. On examination of these teachers and scrutiny of the documents produced by them, it was ascertained that some were genuine; other cases were doubtful but most were ascertained to be bogus appointees. They have been categorized accordingly.
vi) Out of the 5056 teachers verified physically and documents produced by them for scrutiny, the SIT could ascertain that 2805 are genuine appointees. Their names and details are listed separately in the Annexure as “Genuine”.
vii) 1156 teachers have produced forged appointment orders, fake educational documents and nature of appointment as temporary in support of their claims during verification. These are bogus teachers. Their names are listed as “Bogus” in the Annexure.
viii) 1095 teachers who have reported for verification before the SIT are found to be doubtful. They are in possessions of suspected fake educational certificates, suspected forged appointment and transfer orders and appointed against doubtful vacancy of 5 years to 30 years. Their documents have been dispatched for Examination to the experts for obtaining “OPINION” of the signatures of the appointing authority. In case of doubtful vacancy the Directorate of School Education has the onus to prove the same otherwise with all relevant records.
ix) 609 of the teachers are found to be in possession of suspected fake educational certificates. These documents have been dispatched to the respective institution for verification. This is one of the main factors contributing to the inadvertent delay in submission of the report as the reply from the institutions is still awaited. It is being observed that most of these educational certificates pertain to the National Institute of Open Schools (NIOS).
x) Documents of those Teachers, whose appointments orders are suspected to be forged, have been sent to the document experts to verify the genuineness of the appointing authority. The opinion is awaited.
xi) It is the submission of the SIT, that the govt. may take a decision on the status of these doubtful cases, subject to the outcome of the opinion from the experts and the verification report from the educational institutions as and when the same is received.
A reading of the aforesaid sub-paragraphs reveals some strange and contradictory facts. Admittedly, the SIT have not the technical expertise to verify the genuineness of documents as is evident in the sub-paragraphs (viii) to (xi) above, wherein it is found that they have sent the suspected forged appointments of the doubtful appointees for obtaining expert opinion. The questions then are: On what basis could the SIT, in the absence of the necessary expertise in the field of verification of documents, possibly conclude that some documents are ‘genuine’, some are ‘forged’ and some are ‘suspected forged’? What were the criteria employed by the SIT in making the distinction between documents that are, according to them, ‘genuine’, ‘forged’ and ‘suspected forged’? What can the distinguishing feature be between a ‘forged” and ‘suspected forged’ appointment order on an examination of the face of the record?
Again, according to the SIT, educational documents produced by the bogus appointees are fake documents whereas those submitted by the doubtful appointees are suspected fake and, therefore, dispatched to the various institutions for verification. It is apparent from this that those submitted by the bogus appointees have been considered to be fake outright requiring no further verification from the educational institutions. The reasons for concluding that the educational documents of the bogus appointees are fake are also not rendered by the SIT. There can be nothing more arbitrary than this action of the SIT.
Further. with regard to the fate of the doubtful category of appointees. the SIT has shifted the onus on the Government to decide on their
Status and the Govt. in turn decided to cancel the finding of the SIT on the so called doubtful category and continue their service inde11nitely. From both the actions of the SIT and the Govt., only one thing can be inferred; that to protect the interest of candidates having some influence, a tacit understanding was made between the SIT and the Govt. to carve out a category of appointees naming it as the ‘doubtful category’ and allow them to continue in service pending decision on their fate, while in the meantime, the services of those candidates who, having no influence, have been put in the category of bogus appointments, would be terminated, and subsequently, long after the issue of termination has settled down, the appointment of those in the doubtful list would be deemed as genuine. The drama that Is unfolding is painting a clear picture of pure discrimination.
3. That still more interesting facts are to be found in the aforesaid SIT report in the chapter on ‘constraints in investigations’, in numbered paragraphs, among which the paragraphs 1,2,3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13 are reproduced herein below:
1. The Directorate could hand over appointment files covering the period from 2005 onwards. The Department could hardly furnish any of the relevant files prior to 2005, though the terms of reference for investigation was from 2002 to 2009. This has greatly affected in establishing the genuineness of the case of so many teachers.
2. The Department was asked to furnish not less than 40 posts creation order copies. Out of which, hardly 23 orders could be furnished to the SIT.
3. The Department was asked to submit all the appointees in chronological order from the date of creation of posts till date in regard to 1991 creation orders. The Department could submit records from 2006 onwards and there is no record of appointment prior to that i.e., 15 years record.
5. Review of record maintenance and weeding of records was never done in a prescribed and systematic manner. Proper application of official procedure is not observed. For instance. the Director of School Education vide NO.ED/GSS/B-8/200203 Dt. 16-11-05 has issued a circular to all section/section officers to sort out and hand over old records/files to the Record Keeper on or before 19-11-05 for disposal/burnt. This excludes post creation Order, Govt. Notification, Confirmation of posts appointment orders etc.
6. However, it is confirmed that no proper Board for such destruction was constituted and no list of the records destroyed were maintained. Taking advantage of this type of order, it is suspected that a good number of files pertaining to appointment matters, post creation files were systematically destroyed to cover up the illegal activities practiced in the Directorate.
7. It is also observed that since 28-02.2003, the Department had not obtained government’s approval for continuation of little over 10,000 temporary posts in the department. The Finance Deptt. Has confirmed vide NO.FIN/ESTT•8/2009 Dt. 21-07-09 that the department of School Education has not complied with O.M. NO.FINIESTT-75/2003 Dt. 07-07-03 through which all departments were asked to submit detail data on temporary posts in existence. It has been further confirmed from the department sources that continuation of temporary posts was obtained only up to 28-02-03.
9. Basing on the above observation, it can be technically concluded that over 10,000 temporary posts in the department were either discontinued/abolished in the department since 2802-03. The Govt. without ascertaining the status of these temporary posts was very accommodating in according approval for appointment of various categories of posts.
10. The School Education dept and the Department of School Education has to furnish documentary proof that vacancies actually existed even after, when no administrative or Finance approval was obtained for those temporary posts.
11. A sizable number of appointments made under TEMPORARY basis have been treated categorized as BOGUS, as such temporary appointments is in direct contravention of the ban, which is still in force, vide clause 3 of Govt. Memo No.ar5/asso/98 (C) Dated 26.02.2001.
12. Interestingly, the School Education Deptt. is unable to clearly identify the name/s of the dealing asstt.s entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the records of all appointments in the Deptt. It has been ascertained that from 2002 onwards all appointment matters were finalized with the approval of the Govt. The Directorate should have all the appointment records prior to 2002 and on the other hand, the Govt. also must have a starting point and a detail account of the vacancies position to monitor the actual position. This was never done and whatever the Directorate proposed, without ascertaining the actual position, the Govt. was very accommodating in according series of approvals without ascertaining the actual number of existing vacancy.
The above paragraphs answers most of the questions that has been raised by us against the validity of the findings arrived at by the SIT. Firstly, it is all along our contention that the SIT had conducted the investigation without having access to the records available at the Department. The SIT report confirms this very fact. According to them records pertaining to appointments made prior to 2005 were not available because of the fact that the same had been destroyed by the department in pursuance of a circular dated 16.11.05 issued by the Director of School Education. The failure of the Department to furnish any of the relevant files prior to 2005, according to the SIT, has greatly affected in establishing the genuineness of the case of so many teachers. Now, the interesting aspect about the SIT report is that all the teachers under the ‘bogus list’ were appointed prior to 2005. This clearly indicates that the SIT resorted to the arbitrary method of declaring all appointments made prior to 2005 as bogus in the absence of the relevant files, of course, after applying pick and choose policy in few ca8es according to their whims and fancies. ‘
Secondly, it has been our contention that all the appointments, irrespective of the category in which they are placed by the SIT, having been issued after duly obtaining the prior approval of the Govt., no appointment can be termed as bogus. At the most, all the appointments may be termed as irregular appointments because the same were made without selection through competitive exams. The fact that all the appointments were made with the due approval of the Govt., is made abundantly clear by the statements given by the SIT in the paragraphs 9 and 13 above. Under such circumstances, the question of categorizing the appointees into ‘Genuine’, ‘Bogus’ and ‘Doubtful’ does not arise, there being no rationale to such exercise. People in the same boat must either sink together or sail together.
Thirdly, our contention that appointees categorized as Doubtful Appointees are those who mostly were appointed between 2006 to 2009 and have been placed in the said category by virtue of the fact that the files pertaining to their appointment is available at the department, is confirmed from the facts rendered by the SIT above. Merely because records are available with regard to this category does not entitle them preferential treatment, when the fault for non maintenance of proper records lies with the department, which is the record keeper. In the instant case, if preferential treatment is to be given, it is to be given to those who have been appointed earlier, by applying the settled principle of’ first come last go’.
Thus, even from a reading of the summary report of the SIT alone, one can see that it is rife with ambiguities and contradictions as we have all along been contending. What has been discussed hereinabove is only on the introductory portion of the report, but what follows hereafter will reveal the specific blunders and deliberate cover ups committed by the SIT in the preparation of the report on the different categories of appointees.
4. That as per the paragraph 11 of the SIT report under the heading ‘constraints in investigations’, a sizable number of appointments made under temporary basis have been treated categorized as BOGUS, as such temporary appointments is in direct contravention of the ban, which is still in force, vide clause #3 of Govt. Memo No.AR5/ASSO/98 (C) Dated 26.02.2001. By this, it would mean that the SIT has scrupulously included all temporary appointees appointed between 2002 and 2009 in the category of bogus teachers. However, a minute examination of the list of genuine teachers reveals that the SIT has INSERT IGNOREed temporary appointees in innocuous places as would be hard to detect. These temporary appointees in the genuine list were appointed between 2002 and 2009 and are exclusive of the appointees who were initially appointed prior to 2002 but made temporary after 2002 and also those who were appointed on compassionate ground on temporary basis.
The Commissioner &
Secretary & Ex-officio
Director
School Education.
Nagaland, Kohima.
Sub:- Representation requesting the cancellation/revocation of the SIT report on Bogus appointment and to conduct fresh enquiry by an independent expert committee and/or requisition all available posts of teachers and to conduct impartial selection examination against the vacancies.
Sir
With due respect, the undersigned, for and on behalf of all the aggrieved teachers, beg to state on the subject cited above, as follows:
1. That immediately after the publication in the local dailies of the list of the four categories of teachers based on the SIT report, we had applied for the copies of the detailed findings of the SIT in the said four lists. However, we were supplied with the SIT report on the bogus and genuine teachers only and till date, despite our repeated requests, the department continues to withhold from us the detailed findings of the SIT on the list of the so called doubtful appointees on the specious and evasive excuse that the case of the doubtful category of teachers is still under investigation. It may be mentioned herein that only on 03.08.2010 we had applied for the copy of the SIT report on the doubtful appointees and in reply to our application, vide the letter dated 28.08.2010, we were furnished only with the list that was published in the local daily shorn of the findings of the SIT against each teacher. On our insistence that what we had applied for was the copy of the SIT report itself, we were orally informed that there is no such detailed report on the doubtful category of1eachers submitted by the SIT. In the meantime, the teachers in the list of the so called doubtful category are being allowed to draw their salary ‘till further orders’, i.e., indefinitely, while, on the other hand, the salary of those of us who have been put under the so called bogus list arbitrarily, is being withheld. From the said action, it can be abundantly inferred that the Department is not transparent in the instant case and that it has no intention of doing justice.
2. That it is also a fact that after the SIT report was published in the local dailies, on our enquiry as to what were the procedures and criteria adopted by the SIT in classifying the appointees into 4 (four) categories, the department had informed us that forensic tests were conducted to determine the authenticity of the appointment but when we sought the detailed forensic report the same was denied to us.
Subsequently, we have come into possession a copy of the summary of the report submitted by the SIT and it is verified from the said report that no such expert tests were conducted by the SIT in arriving at the findings. The fact that no forensic test, expert opinion, or verification from educational institutions were taken by the SIT while categorizing the appointees, can be ascertained from the paragraph 6 of the said report. The relevant portion, in this regard, are the sub-paragraphs (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xi), which are quoted below, as follows:
v) The SIT during the physical verification of teachers in all the 34 DEO’s and DIS’s establishments, have also verified 546 teachers’ whose names were not found in the incumbency list as furnished by the respective establishments. On examination of these teachers and scrutiny of the documents produced by them, it was ascertained that some were genuine; other cases were doubtful but most were ascertained to be bogus appointees. They have been categorized accordingly.
vi) Out of the 5056 teachers verified physically and documents produced by them for scrutiny, the SIT could ascertain that 2805 are genuine appointees. Their names and details are listed separately in the Annexure as “Genuine”.
vii) 1156 teachers have produced forged appointment orders, fake educational documents and nature of appointment as temporary in support of their claims during verification. These are bogus teachers. Their names are listed as “Bogus” in the Annexure.
viii) 1095 teachers who have reported for verification before the SIT are found to be doubtful. They are in possessions of suspected fake educational certificates, suspected forged appointment and transfer orders and appointed against doubtful vacancy of 5 years to 30 years. Their documents have been dispatched for Examination to the experts for obtaining “OPINION” of the signatures of the appointing authority. In case of doubtful vacancy the Directorate of School Education has the onus to prove the same otherwise with all relevant records.
ix) 609 of the teachers are found to be in possession of suspected fake educational certificates. These documents have been dispatched to the respective institution for verification. This is one of the main factors contributing to the inadvertent delay in submission of the report as the reply from the institutions is still awaited. It is being observed that most of these educational certificates pertain to the National Institute of Open Schools (NIOS).
x) Documents of those Teachers, whose appointments orders are suspected to be forged, have been sent to the document experts to verify the genuineness of the appointing authority. The opinion is awaited.
xi) It is the submission of the SIT, that the govt. may take a decision on the status of these doubtful cases, subject to the outcome of the opinion from the experts and the verification report from the educational institutions as and when the same is received.
A reading of the aforesaid sub-paragraphs reveals some strange and contradictory facts. Admittedly, the SIT have not the technical expertise to verify the genuineness of documents as is evident in the sub-paragraphs (viii) to (xi) above, wherein it is found that they have sent the suspected forged appointments of the doubtful appointees for obtaining expert opinion. The questions then are: On what basis could the SIT, in the absence of the necessary expertise in the field of verification of documents, possibly conclude that some documents are ‘genuine’, some are ‘forged’ and some are ‘suspected forged’? What were the criteria employed by the SIT in making the distinction between documents that are, according to them, ‘genuine’, ‘forged’ and ‘suspected forged’? What can the distinguishing feature be between a ‘forged” and ‘suspected forged’ appointment order on an examination of the face of the record?
Again, according to the SIT, educational documents produced by the bogus appointees are fake documents whereas those submitted by the doubtful appointees are suspected fake and, therefore, dispatched to the various institutions for verification. It is apparent from this that those submitted by the bogus appointees have been considered to be fake outright requiring no further verification from the educational institutions. The reasons for concluding that the educational documents of the bogus appointees are fake are also not rendered by the SIT. There can be nothing more arbitrary than this action of the SIT.
Further. with regard to the fate of the doubtful category of appointees. the SIT has shifted the onus on the Government to decide on their
Status and the Govt. in turn decided to cancel the finding of the SIT on the so called doubtful category and continue their service inde11nitely. From both the actions of the SIT and the Govt., only one thing can be inferred; that to protect the interest of candidates having some influence, a tacit understanding was made between the SIT and the Govt. to carve out a category of appointees naming it as the ‘doubtful category’ and allow them to continue in service pending decision on their fate, while in the meantime, the services of those candidates who, having no influence, have been put in the category of bogus appointments, would be terminated, and subsequently, long after the issue of termination has settled down, the appointment of those in the doubtful list would be deemed as genuine. The drama that Is unfolding is painting a clear picture of pure discrimination.
3. That still more interesting facts are to be found in the aforesaid SIT report in the chapter on ‘constraints in investigations’, in numbered paragraphs, among which the paragraphs 1,2,3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13 are reproduced herein below:
1. The Directorate could hand over appointment files covering the period from 2005 onwards. The Department could hardly furnish any of the relevant files prior to 2005, though the terms of reference for investigation was from 2002 to 2009. This has greatly affected in establishing the genuineness of the case of so many teachers.
2. The Department was asked to furnish not less than 40 posts creation order copies. Out of which, hardly 23 orders could be furnished to the SIT.
3. The Department was asked to submit all the appointees in chronological order from the date of creation of posts till date in regard to 1991 creation orders. The Department could submit records from 2006 onwards and there is no record of appointment prior to that i.e., 15 years record.
5. Review of record maintenance and weeding of records was never done in a prescribed and systematic manner. Proper application of official procedure is not observed. For instance. the Director of School Education vide NO.ED/GSS/B-8/200203 Dt. 16-11-05 has issued a circular to all section/section officers to sort out and hand over old records/files to the Record Keeper on or before 19-11-05 for disposal/burnt. This excludes post creation Order, Govt. Notification, Confirmation of posts appointment orders etc.
6. However, it is confirmed that no proper Board for such destruction was constituted and no list of the records destroyed were maintained. Taking advantage of this type of order, it is suspected that a good number of files pertaining to appointment matters, post creation files were systematically destroyed to cover up the illegal activities practiced in the Directorate.
7. It is also observed that since 28-02.2003, the Department had not obtained government’s approval for continuation of little over 10,000 temporary posts in the department. The Finance Deptt. Has confirmed vide NO.FIN/ESTT•8/2009 Dt. 21-07-09 that the department of School Education has not complied with O.M. NO.FINIESTT-75/2003 Dt. 07-07-03 through which all departments were asked to submit detail data on temporary posts in existence. It has been further confirmed from the department sources that continuation of temporary posts was obtained only up to 28-02-03.
9. Basing on the above observation, it can be technically concluded that over 10,000 temporary posts in the department were either discontinued/abolished in the department since 2802-03. The Govt. without ascertaining the status of these temporary posts was very accommodating in according approval for appointment of various categories of posts.
10. The School Education dept and the Department of School Education has to furnish documentary proof that vacancies actually existed even after, when no administrative or Finance approval was obtained for those temporary posts.
11. A sizable number of appointments made under TEMPORARY basis have been treated categorized as BOGUS, as such temporary appointments is in direct contravention of the ban, which is still in force, vide clause 3 of Govt. Memo No.ar5/asso/98 (C) Dated 26.02.2001.
12. Interestingly, the School Education Deptt. is unable to clearly identify the name/s of the dealing asstt.s entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the records of all appointments in the Deptt. It has been ascertained that from 2002 onwards all appointment matters were finalized with the approval of the Govt. The Directorate should have all the appointment records prior to 2002 and on the other hand, the Govt. also must have a starting point and a detail account of the vacancies position to monitor the actual position. This was never done and whatever the Directorate proposed, without ascertaining the actual position, the Govt. was very accommodating in according series of approvals without ascertaining the actual number of existing vacancy.
The above paragraphs answers most of the questions that has been raised by us against the validity of the findings arrived at by the SIT. Firstly, it is all along our contention that the SIT had conducted the investigation without having access to the records available at the Department. The SIT report confirms this very fact. According to them records pertaining to appointments made prior to 2005 were not available because of the fact that the same had been destroyed by the department in pursuance of a circular dated 16.11.05 issued by the Director of School Education. The failure of the Department to furnish any of the relevant files prior to 2005, according to the SIT, has greatly affected in establishing the genuineness of the case of so many teachers. Now, the interesting aspect about the SIT report is that all the teachers under the ‘bogus list’ were appointed prior to 2005. This clearly indicates that the SIT resorted to the arbitrary method of declaring all appointments made prior to 2005 as bogus in the absence of the relevant files, of course, after applying pick and choose policy in few ca8es according to their whims and fancies. ‘
Secondly, it has been our contention that all the appointments, irrespective of the category in which they are placed by the SIT, having been issued after duly obtaining the prior approval of the Govt., no appointment can be termed as bogus. At the most, all the appointments may be termed as irregular appointments because the same were made without selection through competitive exams. The fact that all the appointments were made with the due approval of the Govt., is made abundantly clear by the statements given by the SIT in the paragraphs 9 and 13 above. Under such circumstances, the question of categorizing the appointees into ‘Genuine’, ‘Bogus’ and ‘Doubtful’ does not arise, there being no rationale to such exercise. People in the same boat must either sink together or sail together.
Thirdly, our contention that appointees categorized as Doubtful Appointees are those who mostly were appointed between 2006 to 2009 and have been placed in the said category by virtue of the fact that the files pertaining to their appointment is available at the department, is confirmed from the facts rendered by the SIT above. Merely because records are available with regard to this category does not entitle them preferential treatment, when the fault for non maintenance of proper records lies with the department, which is the record keeper. In the instant case, if preferential treatment is to be given, it is to be given to those who have been appointed earlier, by applying the settled principle of’ first come last go’.
Thus, even from a reading of the summary report of the SIT alone, one can see that it is rife with ambiguities and contradictions as we have all along been contending. What has been discussed hereinabove is only on the introductory portion of the report, but what follows hereafter will reveal the specific blunders and deliberate cover ups committed by the SIT in the preparation of the report on the different categories of appointees.
4. That as per the paragraph 11 of the SIT report under the heading ‘constraints in investigations’, a sizable number of appointments made under temporary basis have been treated categorized as BOGUS, as such temporary appointments is in direct contravention of the ban, which is still in force, vide clause #3 of Govt. Memo No.AR5/ASSO/98 (C) Dated 26.02.2001. By this, it would mean that the SIT has scrupulously included all temporary appointees appointed between 2002 and 2009 in the category of bogus teachers. However, a minute examination of the list of genuine teachers reveals that the SIT has INSERT IGNOREed temporary appointees in innocuous places as would be hard to detect. These temporary appointees in the genuine list were appointed between 2002 and 2009 and are exclusive of the appointees who were initially appointed prior to 2002 but made temporary after 2002 and also those who were appointed on compassionate ground on temporary basis.
(Continued from page 4)
9. That In order to lend credence to the actions intended to be taken against the bogus teachers, the Govt. again constituted the Special Verification Committee (SVC) for each District vide Notification NO.EDS/ANSTA-0/12008(PT), dated 19.03.2010. However, the exercise conducted by the SVCs was not investigation, because we were informed by the SVC that their duty was only to collect from the bogus and absentee teachers the documents relating to their appointment and to submit the same to the Government. Accordingly, on the day fixed for the SVC verification, only the documents were collected from the teachers. There are, therefore, no reports of any findings submitted by the SVC, and if at all there are any such report, the same has not been published by the Government. The Government cannot, therefore, claim that the present process of issuing the show cause’ notice is being done on the basis of the findings submitted by the SVC.
10. That so far, the department has issued show cause notices to all except 59 teachers in the bogus list and together with them notices have also been issued to 383 teachers in the doubtful list and 24 teachers in the genuine list and it will not be surprising if show cause notice is issued to all the 6140 teachers who were investigated by the SIT. Such action appears to be strange and farcical, but on close scrutiny one can discern an underlying ingenious design, and the design is to first ensure that all the blunders that have so far been committed by the SIT and the department itself is covered up by making a show that justice is being done and thereafter to give effect to the intention of terminating the services of the so called bogus teachers on piecemeal basis. Obviously, the Govt. though has realized its mistakes have no intention of admitting the same or giving up on its predetermined intentions.
11. That having heard out our genuine grievances, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Nagaland had personally given us the assurance that the services of all genuinely qualified and sincerely serving teachers would be retained and believing that the said promise would be kept, we have been hopefully awaiting some positive action. However, our hope has been belied by the present action of the Govt., which is directly contrary to the promise we were given. The question then is, when the Government which exists for the welfare of its citizens is bent on destroying the very lives of the ones for whose welfare it exists, to whom will the citizens turn to for justice?
12. That excepting a negligible few teachers who have been appointed through the recommendation of the DSB (The last DSB exam being held in the later part of 2001) or the NPSC as the case may be, all other appointments made between 2002 and 2009 were made directly, following the same procedure. All the appointments were made after obtaining Govt. approval. Under such circumstances, distinction cannot be validly made among equals, and if anyone is to be made answerable for any anomalies in the appointments, it should be the Govt. and the department and not the teachers themselves who are mere employees.
13. That having rendered sincere service to the Government for so many years, and in the process most of us having become over-aged to join other service/profession or too old to learn or earn through other profession/skills, to victimize and arbitrarily deprive us of the only source of livelihood for us and our dependants amounts to breach of our Fundamental Right to life.
14. That it is the bounden duty of the Government to render us justice in the instant circumstance and justice cannot be done through the procedure that is being presently adopted. If justice may be done, it can be done only if all the teachers who have not been recruited through open exams are treated equally.
15. That neither the SIT nor the SVC has conducted just and fair investigation and any action taken on the basis of the said investigations would result in great injustice. If the Govt. is bent on doing justice, The SIT report, which is the only report so far in existence, must be set aside and an independent and impartial expert investigating authority like the CBI should be invited to investigate the matter thoroughly.
In the premises aforesaid, it is respectfully requested that the SIT report be set aside and the ongoing action taken up by the Govt. on the basis of the said report be terminated, and if felt necessary, an independent and impartial expert body be entrusted to investigate the matter afresh and in the meantime the salaries of the aggrieved teachers be released and their original position be restored, and/or requisition all the posts presently occupied by teachers who have been recruited without going through open exams and selection exam be conducted expeditiously for filling up the posts giving opportunity to all the teachers irrespective of their age to compete for the available vacancies in the interest of justice.
Dated: the 7th day
of September, 2010
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
LIMAYANGER
Secretary, ATAN
VIKATO SWU
Convenor, ATAN
(Morung Express Clarification:- The above statement from ATAN published in this column is an extract of the original representation. Kindly note that point no 5 to 8 of the ATAN representation has been omitted due to want of space)
9. That In order to lend credence to the actions intended to be taken against the bogus teachers, the Govt. again constituted the Special Verification Committee (SVC) for each District vide Notification NO.EDS/ANSTA-0/12008(PT), dated 19.03.2010. However, the exercise conducted by the SVCs was not investigation, because we were informed by the SVC that their duty was only to collect from the bogus and absentee teachers the documents relating to their appointment and to submit the same to the Government. Accordingly, on the day fixed for the SVC verification, only the documents were collected from the teachers. There are, therefore, no reports of any findings submitted by the SVC, and if at all there are any such report, the same has not been published by the Government. The Government cannot, therefore, claim that the present process of issuing the show cause’ notice is being done on the basis of the findings submitted by the SVC.
10. That so far, the department has issued show cause notices to all except 59 teachers in the bogus list and together with them notices have also been issued to 383 teachers in the doubtful list and 24 teachers in the genuine list and it will not be surprising if show cause notice is issued to all the 6140 teachers who were investigated by the SIT. Such action appears to be strange and farcical, but on close scrutiny one can discern an underlying ingenious design, and the design is to first ensure that all the blunders that have so far been committed by the SIT and the department itself is covered up by making a show that justice is being done and thereafter to give effect to the intention of terminating the services of the so called bogus teachers on piecemeal basis. Obviously, the Govt. though has realized its mistakes have no intention of admitting the same or giving up on its predetermined intentions.
11. That having heard out our genuine grievances, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Nagaland had personally given us the assurance that the services of all genuinely qualified and sincerely serving teachers would be retained and believing that the said promise would be kept, we have been hopefully awaiting some positive action. However, our hope has been belied by the present action of the Govt., which is directly contrary to the promise we were given. The question then is, when the Government which exists for the welfare of its citizens is bent on destroying the very lives of the ones for whose welfare it exists, to whom will the citizens turn to for justice?
12. That excepting a negligible few teachers who have been appointed through the recommendation of the DSB (The last DSB exam being held in the later part of 2001) or the NPSC as the case may be, all other appointments made between 2002 and 2009 were made directly, following the same procedure. All the appointments were made after obtaining Govt. approval. Under such circumstances, distinction cannot be validly made among equals, and if anyone is to be made answerable for any anomalies in the appointments, it should be the Govt. and the department and not the teachers themselves who are mere employees.
13. That having rendered sincere service to the Government for so many years, and in the process most of us having become over-aged to join other service/profession or too old to learn or earn through other profession/skills, to victimize and arbitrarily deprive us of the only source of livelihood for us and our dependants amounts to breach of our Fundamental Right to life.
14. That it is the bounden duty of the Government to render us justice in the instant circumstance and justice cannot be done through the procedure that is being presently adopted. If justice may be done, it can be done only if all the teachers who have not been recruited through open exams are treated equally.
15. That neither the SIT nor the SVC has conducted just and fair investigation and any action taken on the basis of the said investigations would result in great injustice. If the Govt. is bent on doing justice, The SIT report, which is the only report so far in existence, must be set aside and an independent and impartial expert investigating authority like the CBI should be invited to investigate the matter thoroughly.
In the premises aforesaid, it is respectfully requested that the SIT report be set aside and the ongoing action taken up by the Govt. on the basis of the said report be terminated, and if felt necessary, an independent and impartial expert body be entrusted to investigate the matter afresh and in the meantime the salaries of the aggrieved teachers be released and their original position be restored, and/or requisition all the posts presently occupied by teachers who have been recruited without going through open exams and selection exam be conducted expeditiously for filling up the posts giving opportunity to all the teachers irrespective of their age to compete for the available vacancies in the interest of justice.
Dated: the 7th day
of September, 2010
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
LIMAYANGER
Secretary, ATAN
VIKATO SWU
Convenor, ATAN
(Morung Express Clarification:- The above statement from ATAN published in this column is an extract of the original representation. Kindly note that point no 5 to 8 of the ATAN representation has been omitted due to want of space)
