After a prolonged tirade by the Opposition in the just concluded Budget session of State Assembly over the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board (MPPEB) scam, the BJP Government on Wednesday came under further attack with leader of Opposition Satyadev Katare in the State Assembly exposing yet another scam linked with MPonline and irregularities in the selection of pharmacists under the National Rural Health Mission’s (NRHM) Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram (RBSK).
Addressing media persons at the State Congress headquarters here this afternoon, Katare revealed that many irregularities have surfaced in connection with the selection examination conducted for selecting pharmacists under the RBS programme.
He said that in the first selection list issued on the basis of exams conducted online by MPonline, the marks of the candidates in merit were not mentioned. Many candidates failed in their attempt to seek the marks under the Right to Information Act. But one candidate from Panna district Abhilash Tamrakar got a reply to his request by post under the RTI on February 22 this year. This established that even candidates securing less marks than those rejected had got selected.
Few aggrieved students were also present at the press conference. To establish their charge they flashed copies of the replies received in response to their RTI queries regarding the second selection list.
Another serious mater raised by Katare was regarding the non-selection of Sunita Jain in the State Service examination conducted by Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. Jain told journalists that she was not selected for interview after securing 1249 marks out of 2100 in the written examination. To her dismay, she found that a male candidate was called for interview with 1240 marks. Both the candidates belonged to the general category. She had appeared for the preliminary examination in 2005 and the “mains” in 2006.
Jain said that she took the matter to the High Court. “The court gave a judgement but did not do justice”, she observed stating that the court’s decision was bound to the “cut-off marks” that were kept lower for male candidates. This is violation of her and every woman’s Constitutional rights. To a pointed query, she said lack of funds have prevented her from going to the Supreme Court in this case.