DRDO violated the Article 309 by implementing interview in promotion of scientist F to scientist G grade without proper amendment in SRO.

NO Assessment interview requirement for Promotion from scientist ‘F’ to Senior scientist ‘G’ as per the DRDO service rule-1979-Rule-8(2)(e) ; but Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment of DRDO forward name before promotion committee after “ INTERACTION ’’ .

What is the meaning of interaction and what is its need against the rule?  Nothing except the violation of law for corruption. UPSC conducted examinations for thousands participant for few seats then how RAC chairman want to stop the limited scientists opportunities to appear before the committee directly. Intention of Chairman is very clear.

Then Chairman, RAC Dr. P. S. Goel’s letter RAC/01/Assessment/PSG, dated 22-3-11 introduced this mechanism to give favor to incompetent few DRDO scientists  and for this act in return he got Prof. MGK Menon’s chair, RCI, Hyderabad  which fed him 84 lakhs per year. It is pure kick back or DRDO should prove the justification of his appointment.

What is this, is it not corruption? Best part of this type of corruption is money which he is receiving is poor tax payer’s money.

Question is, if he was competent authority to amendment of this kind of mechanism than why later DRDO amended this through Government of India gazette notification. He doesn’t have knowledge of the constitution of India, he is not competent authority to amend the  DRDS rules which are framed under Article 309 of  the constitution of India.

Where is law, where is administration, where is governance, it is happening in every stage in DRTC promotions also, where incompetent fake certificates holders are getting promotions and all relevant benefits, in recruitment of scientists lot of cases are exposed like Arun Kumar’s daughter, Selvamurty’s daughter, A K Bansal’ daughter and now several in queue like Narendra Kumar’s daughter, R B Singh’s son appointment are under lenses

Recently in CEPTAM recruitment   drive nearly 5 lakhs applications was received by CEPTAM, they made almost Rs 15 lakhs or more by introducing mandatory SMS registration, pure corruption by CEPTAM management god only knows who is patronizing this kind of corruption in DRDO. The 1 lakh applicant were rejected,  and thousands were not appeared due to examination center, CEPTAM did great job candidate who want center in nearby DELHI put him to Goa, Mizoram, Ajmer, Kolkata, Chennai etc.

RTI Request to DRDO

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of the  following

The amount of expenditure incurred on Internal Screening Committee ( Main ) held for promotion from the grade of Scientist `F` to the grade of Scientist`G`, under the following Heads separatelyfor the Year 2011,2012 and 2013

a)    TA/DA on the Chairman and Members of the Internal Screening Committee (Main).

b)    TA on the candidates ( Scientist `F`) who have appeared before the Internal Screening Committee ( Main )

c)    Miscellaneous Expenditure, i.e. other than above (a) and(b), on the Internal Screening Committee ( Main )

Find the application fee for the request attached with this application. If you feel that above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005/Also as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 please provide the details (Name and Designation) of the first appellate authority w.r.t to your department with the reply to the above request., where I may if required file my first appeal.
I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of India. Kindly provide me with the information at the address mentioned with the application. I request you to ensure that the information is provided before the expiry of the 30 day period after you have received the application.

Note: above required information is directly related to corruption and not come under schedule -II

The requested information is pertain to routine establishment / administrative matter which is not covered under exemption as decided by CIC (refer to CIC decision no CIC/LS/A/2012/002612 dated 22/03/2013).

There was no government approval for conducting ISC, main in assessment year 2011, and it was conducted illegally against the DRDS rules for the benefit to few incompetent scientists of their choice.

“Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another is said to do that thing dishonesty”

Regards