Even as the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) has blamed Dr G Vijayakumar alias GV Kumar, a consultant psychologist involved in setting question papers, for being behind the bogus expert opinion row, the Madras High Court on Friday has sought the city police Commissioner heading the Central Crime Brach (CCB) to monitor the investigation and submit a report on April 22.
Chennai:
However, Justice Subramaniam said it reposed confidence on the Commissioner, who is expected to consider the sensitiveness involved in the matter and conduct an independent investigation as high-level police officers are also to be interrogated. “The Commissioner is expected to conduct the investigation in respect of the official procedures followed in the office of the TNUSRB and the way the expert opinion was obtained from the experts and submitted before the High Court.”
Also, observing that the whole episode could not have transpired without the connivance of TNUSRB officials, the judge said a large number of brokers and touts were operating in the field of recruitment in government services, including Police Department. But the judge added: “I don’t know whether such opinion is right or wrong.”
Kumar also filed an affidavit that he has been involved in setting question papers for TNUSRB since 2011. In the present incident, his role is confined to merely suggesting the name of Murthy, a retired teacher from Kendira Vidyalaya, as the board wanted a person with a Math background, he submitted, adding that none of them were aware that the opinion was meant for the High Court and at no point was Murthy introduced as Professor from IIT. He said ahead of his arrest, he was confined to a room for over 20 hours and made to sign on blank papers.
Regarding the suo motu contempt initiated, Justice Subramaniam dropped the name of J K Tripathy, TNUSRB chairman and instead included the name of N K Senthamarai Kannan, member secretary of the board, based on the affidavit that the chairman has no personal knowledge of the incident or the document produced.
Setting aside pleas for an independent probe by an IAS officer, Justice S M Subramaniam said the Commissioner would be the appropriate authority to either conduct or monitor the investigation personally. The counsels appearing for Kumar, now under arrest, and D Murthy, in whose name the expert opinion was submitted to the court as that of a professor from IIT-Madras, said the truth may not come out as it would be a case of police investigating the police.
However, Justice Subramaniam said it reposed confidence on the Commissioner, who is expected to consider the sensitiveness involved in the matter and conduct an independent investigation as high-level police officers are also to be interrogated. “The Commissioner is expected to conduct the investigation in respect of the official procedures followed in the office of the TNUSRB and the way the expert opinion was obtained from the experts and submitted before the High Court.”
Also, observing that the whole episode could not have transpired without the connivance of TNUSRB officials, the judge said a large number of brokers and touts were operating in the field of recruitment in government services, including Police Department. But the judge added: “I don’t know whether such opinion is right or wrong.”
Kumar also filed an affidavit that he has been involved in setting question papers for TNUSRB since 2011. In the present incident, his role is confined to merely suggesting the name of Murthy, a retired teacher from Kendira Vidyalaya, as the board wanted a person with a Math background, he submitted, adding that none of them were aware that the opinion was meant for the High Court and at no point was Murthy introduced as Professor from IIT. He said ahead of his arrest, he was confined to a room for over 20 hours and made to sign on blank papers.
Regarding the suo motu contempt initiated, Justice Subramaniam dropped the name of J K Tripathy, TNUSRB chairman and instead included the name of N K Senthamarai Kannan, member secretary of the board, based on the affidavit that the chairman has no personal knowledge of the incident or the document produced.