agm (qc) recruitment

8/18/2019 AGM (QC) Recruitment

1/7

From, Date: 28.08.12

Mrs. Jaya Prakash

W/o Sri Birendra Kumar, Manager (QC)

House No.-B-66, Ashokpuri

Khajpura, Bailey RoadPatna, PIN-800001

An Open Letter

To,

Dr. Amar Singh, IAS

Chairman and Managing Director

ood Corporation of India

Head Quarter, 16-20

Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001

Sub: rom Advertisement to Appointment of AGM (QC): lawed or orged?

Sir,

My self Jaya Prakash w/o Sri Birendra Kumar, Manager (QC) posted at

FCI, Regional Office, Patna is being forced to write you owing to injustice to

my husband which has gone beyond tolerable limits. It is not under stood how

your few officers can play with rules and regulations and has made a false

report of document verification during interview for the post of AGM (QC) in

the name of recruitment agency. My husband has been denied appointment

despite he has obtained 65.99 marks and must be in merit list at Sr. No. 5

published by CI.

I wish to bring to your kind attention certain facts which have come to

my notice on various aspects through my RTI or by other means from

advertisement to appointment for the post of AGM (QC) advertised in

employment news dated 08.01.2011. It is difficult to believe that everything has

just happened at every stage which more likely appears being cooked,

definitely, not alone by the recruitment agency.

I) Advertisement for the post of AGM (QC): As per FCI (Staff) Regulation 1971

the basic qualification for the post of AGM (QC) is Degree in Agriculture or

Degree in Science with diploma in Food Technology or Master’s Degree in

Zoology or Biochemistry or equivalent qualifications.

Apart from basic qualification, 5 years’ experience in storage of food

grains and maintenance of stock or in the examinations, inspection and analysis

of food grains in Govt. or Public/Private Ltd. Undertakings.


2/7

The desirable was knowledge of toxicology of insecticides, raticides and

fumigants in use in grains stock.

rom the above facts as cited in CI (Staff) Regulation 1971 the basic mandate

towards requirements for the post of AGM (QC) is clear that the applicant

experience must be related with food grain storage, inspections and analysis.

Now looking on the advertisement where in one line has been added as

“For the post of AGM (QC), the experience acquired as Junior/Senior Research

ellow while pursuing higher studies will be reckoned as the requisite

experience.” This line was incorporated in the advertisement without

amendment in CI (Staff) Regulation 1971 by any notification which appears

prime facia a violation of CI (Staff) Regulation 1971.

In one of my RTI, it has been cited by CI HQ New Delhi that it was

reckoned with the approval of Board of Directors which too appears has been

forged. The copy of minutes of the Agenda item No. 96/2007[309

th

Urgent(Adj.)-BD] provided by CI HQ depicts that it was a mere agreeing of

board of directors with proposal which is stating that “For the post of AGM

(QC), the experience acquired as junior/senior fellows while pursuing higher

studies should be reckoned as the requisite experience.” Merely agreeing with

proposal does not mean that the same was approved and the same need to be

verified that whether the proposal was approved or not at later stage. It isworth to mention here that several amendment / substitution vide various

notifications have been occurred in CI (Staff) Regulation 1971 including for the

post of technical cadre of staff lastly on 14.06.2011 that too must would have

been based on approval of Board of directors.

More interestingly, the board was clear in his views that junior/senior

fellows should be covered under the proposal which means all M.Sc. and Ph.D.

students should be covered under the proposal. Nowhere the term “research”

was there wherein board had agreed with the proposal. So is it orged?

Whether forged line was added in the advertisement without necessary

amendment / substitution by Notification in CI (Staff) Regulation 1971

illegally?

II) Relevance of JR /SR : It is to clarify here that JRF is a temporary post in

various research projects with fixed emoluments with HRA or post M.Sc.

award/ stipend/ fellowship with applicable benefits for conducting research

during Ph.D. JRF is exclusively post M.Sc. period and being provided by CSIR,

DBT, ICMR, ICAR, GATE, JEST or others. ICAR is providing a separate


3/7

fellowship named ICAR-JR (PGS) to promote the various research activities for

PG students which has no resemblance with premier JR in projects for post PG

students. So any other fellowships given at any agricultural institution either

through national body or state agricultural universities during Master’s degree

has similar objective and similar experience. In one of the RTI reply frompremier agricultural institute of India that is IARI has provided following

information which is self-explanatory and is as under-

Sr. No. RTI Question Reply

1 Whether all the Indian students who are gettingadmission to Master’s Degree Programme (PG

Courses) in all the disciplines at IARI are getting

ICAR JRF fellowship ?

NO

2Is it correct that Indian PG students who are not

getting ICAR JRF during Master’s Degree

Programme may get IARI fellowship during

Master’s Degree Programme?

Yes, on the advice of

Standing committee

subsequently approved by

Academic council of

institute.

3 Is it correct that any Indian student may pursue hisMaster’s Degree Programme at IARI despite he has

no fellowship at all?

YES

4 Is there any difference in PG Courses offered at IARIfor Indian students who are getting admission with

ICAR JRF in comparison to Indian students who are

getting admission without ICAR JRF but havingIARI fellowship?

NO

5 Whether IARI is providing any extra semester /extra course / extra equipment facility for research

work / extra guidance for research work / extra

library facility to the Indian PG students with ICAR

JRF in comparison to Indian PG students withoutICAR JRF?

NO

6 Is there any discrimination by IARI between Indian

students who are having ICAR JRF during Master’sDegree Programme and Indian students who are

not having ICAR JRF during Master’s Degree

Programme?

NO

So few officers of CI cannot play in the name of ICAR-JR (PGS) taking the

guard of recruitment agency, which was neither the part of advertisement nor

was proposed in CI Board of Director meeting.

III) Issuance of Admit Card: There appear grave anomalies in screening of the

application forms while issuing admits cards. After uploading of admit cardsafter through screening under defined parameters, several representations were


4/7

submitted from different applicants. It’s totally surprising that when it was

screened as per certain norms or protocol, then why huge number of admit

cards were issued without adhering any guidelines or norms. It is being said that

huge number of applicant visited FCI Hqrs and managed to get admit cards

issued. What it means that there was no guidelines or something got managed?

IV) Question papers in written examination: Though it’s difficult to finger on

this aspect as the incidence may be a matter of chance but overall scenario turns

the needle of suspicion towards possible fraud of question papers for the post

of AGM (QC) too. It is worth to mention here that the most of technical

paper’s questions were from a specific guide that too with all the similar choices

- word by word - in same order as specified in guide. Reference can be cited as

from book “Objective Agriculture” by S. R. Kantawa.

Page No-1 : Q. No. 12

Page No-4 : Q. No. 54, 59, 61



Page No-10 : Q. No. 140

Page No-13 : Q. No. 181

Page No-14 : Q. No. 197, 198

Page No-15 : Q. No. 212

Page No- 16 : Q. No. 223Page No- 18 : Q. No. 250

Page No-19 : Q. No. 261


Page No-96 : Q. No. 103, 106

Page No-121 : Q. No. 136, 149

Page No-144 : Q. No. 229

These were few memory based questions marked after exams out of 60

wherein actual may be more or from similar another guide and there are every

possibility of fraud that can come in suspicious mind due to overall scenario.

V) Interview: It is specifying here that lot of candidates were not allowed to

appear in interview. It’s through investigation will clearly bring the picture in

front of you that there was a gross violation of proposal of Board of Directors

in the 309th URGENT (ADJ.)-BD held on 28.12.2007 where in proposal was

made the “For the post of AGM (QC), the experience acquired as junior/senior

fellows while pursuing higher studies should be reckoned as the requisite

experience.” Here it’s clear that all M.Sc. students irrespective of fellowships are


5/7

junior fellows and all Ph.D. students are senior fellows. Hence debarring the

candidates from interview in the name of fellowship was totally illegal. More

surprisingly even candidates with fellowships from concerned universities were

debarred from interview. It was told at that time to such candidates that

fellowships from any national body/organisation only would be considered.Definitely it was planned conspiracy to accommodate few candidates who

were the part of conspiracy in connivance with few CI officers and

recruitment agency. It has also come to notice that three candidates were

interviewed at much later stage i.e. nearly one year after first interview on the

direction of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana.

VI) Issuance of appointment letter without publication of result: It is difficult to

believe for any one that CI can indulge in such activity but it’s a die-hard fact

that appointment letters were issued without publication of result for the postof AGM (QC) in any public domain. It was a big organised fraud on the part of

FCI. FCI had favoured for the wrongly selected candidates and make them to

join the FCI illegally to avoid objection from actual deserving candidates

through court or by any other means. By indulging in such activity, FCI has also

killed the normal human rights of the applicants. However after getting

pressure from RTI or from other corners, FCI uploaded the result on its web

site nearly after one month of issuance of appointment letter.

VII) Issuance of appointment letters through web site: This was one of theprime violations of protocol of process of appointment. For all other posts of

the same advertisement, no appointment letter was issued through web site.

Then why for the post of AGM (QC) it was issued through web site that too

without publication of result. Definitely it was a part of fraud on the behalf of

certain officers of FCI posted at Head Quarter, New Delhi.

VIII) Uploading of appointment letters on web page other than meant for

publication of result: It is also a truth that appointment letters were uploaded

on web page not meant for that purpose. It was not uploaded on the link

where results were being published which clearly indicates that FCI was trying

to do it secretly to make the fraud successful.

IX) Issuance of appointment letter for non-departmental candidate through CI

web page link meant for routine transfer of Cat-I staff and staffs posted at CI,

HQ, New Delhi: The web page link Personnel > Posting /Transfers

/Promotions order is primarily meant for transfer posting of Cat-I FCI

employees as well as other employees posted at FCI HQ New Delhi. But by

violating the normal protocol appointments letters were uploaded on above


6/7

link for candidates selected under direct recruitment including non-

departmental candidates which was a part of planned fraud.

X) Call for vigilance clearance before publication of result: It’s also a part of big

organised fraud where in vigilance clearance was called confidentially beforepublication of result which was not the normal protocol of appointment. For

all other posts advertised in same advertisement the protocol followed was first

publication of result, then issuing appointment letters by post, calling for

vigilance clearance and then taking appointment. Definitely the episode was a

part of planned gimmick and fraud.

XI) Up-loading of appointment letter for non-departmental candidate at later

stage by changing the serial no. of already uploaded letters: on 22.03.12

appointment letters were uploaded to only 6 departmental candidates. SriBirendra Kumar by not seeing his name among the candidates to whom

appointment letters were issued with no further information from any corner

rushed to the FCI, HQ, New Delhi on 26.03.12. However no information was

given by HQ. Hence one RTI application was submitted immediately by hand

on 26.03.12. However after returning from HQ New Delhi it was found that

number of appointment letters was increased by replacing the other office

order which were uploaded after 26.03.12. It shows the complete fraud in

uploading the appointment letters in back date as fresh stay of court on issuing

appointment letters were expected.

XII) ake document verification report submitted by recruitment agency in

connivance with CI officers deputed for document verification & conducting

interview- The document verification report is totally fake where in it has been

claimed by the FCI in the name of recruitment agency that Sri Birendra Kumar

had not produced the documents regarding experience before interview. It’s a

complete fraud as Sri Birendra Kumar had produced all documents in original

before interview and only after it’s through verification he was allowed to

appear in interview.

XIII) Cheating / fraud by recruitment agency / CI: It’s also a matter of great

surprise that after more than one year of interview and with repeated RTI /

representation, it has been communicated by the FCI in the name of

recruitment agency that Sri Birendra Kumar had not produced the documents

regarding experience before interview which is totally false. Even it was the

moral as well as legal responsibility of FCI to communicate the applicant if any

such matter was there who was waiting for result for more than 10 months. FCI


7/7

has not only traumatised the applicant by making fraud and keeping the

applicant in dark but the entire family of the applicant is in trauma.

With all the above scenario I plea for justice to my husband. There

appears violation of rules, regulations and protocols at every stage. I hope for

an independent enquiry of entire episode in respect of above facts which

primarily appears forged not flawed.

Yours faithfully

(Jaya Prakash)Copy to

1) Sri S. P. Kar

Executive Director (Vig.)


Head Quarter, 16-20


2) Sri Anoop Kumar, IAS

Transparency officer


Head Quarter, 16-20


(Jaya Prakash)

agm (qc) recruitment

Documents