Tamil Nadu cites report by ghost ‘expert’ to justify job test error, faces HC probe

CHENNAI: The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) was left redfaced after its attempt to mislead the Madras high court with a bogus ‘expert report’ was exposed by a job applicant on Monday.

After the policeman proved that such an ‘expert’ never existed in IITMadras, the board admitted to ‘impersonation’ and said it had lodged a complaint against two people responsible for it. The court, however, called for a detailed response from the department.

The issue pertains to a recruitment drive conducted by the board for the post of sub-inspector (fingerprint) in 2018. S Arunachalam, a grade-II police constable, applied for the post and participated in the recruitment process. However, Arunachalam was denied appointment as he failed to secure the required marks in the written examination. Aggrieved, he approached the high court alleging that on account of a wrong key answer, half a mark was denied to him with which he would have become eligible for the appointment.

Opposing the plea, TNUSRB produced an ‘expert opinion’ from Dr D Murthi, professor, department of maths, IIT-M, dated March 1 which said the the petitioner had indeed entered wrong answer to the question and that the key answer was right. Based on the opinion, the high court dismissed his plea. On Monday when Justice S M Subramaniam commenced his proceedings, Arunachalam’s counsel made an urgent mention stating that the ‘expert opinion’ produced by the board was ‘bogus’ as no such person named Moorthy exists in the list of faculty of IIT-M. “This apart, the RTI reply sent by the institute dated March 18, which is placed before the court says that there is no regular/guest/visiting faculty under the name professor D Moorthy in the department of mathematics,” he said.

Appalled over the submission, Justice Subramaniam sought a response from the additional advocate-general who represented the TNUSRB.

When the plea was taken up for hearing, additional advocate general admitted that there was an impersonation and submitted written instructions signed by the inspector-general of police and member-secretary of the board, in which it was stated that they had identified some impersonation in the matter and that a criminal complaint has been lodged with the Chennai city commissioner of police.