IT News
Imphal, April 25:
Amid intensifying scrutiny surrounding the appointment process within the Education Engineering Wing (EEW), a contentious standoff involving L. Saratchandra Singh, the in-charge Chief Engineer, has taken center stage. Revealing a notable divergence from transparency norms, it has emerged that despite repeated requests under the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 to shed light on his appointment as Superintending Engineer, L. Saratchandra Singh has opted to challenge the RTI provisions, escalating the matter to the Manipur High Court.
The unfolding saga has unveiled a complex narrative. L. Saratchandra Singh assumed his role as Superintending Engineer on August 5, 2020, subsequent to his tenure as Assistant Engineer (AE) at Loktak Development Authority (LDA) and a stint on deputation to DRDA, Chandel. Upon his return from DRDA, he was reinstated within the Education (S) department’s Engineering Wing as Superintending Engineer.
However, murmurs of skepticism regarding his qualifications and procedural adherence have permeated public discourse. In response, RTI applications were lodged with both LDA and EEW to unveil the truth behind L. Saratchandra Singh’s appointment. Yet, his steadfast refusal to disclose pertinent documents pertaining to his appointment has only intensified suspicions. His recourse to citing personal information exemptions under the RTI Act has been met with skepticism, particularly given the public availability of analogous documents for other departmental personnel.
The imbroglio reached a critical juncture when the Manipur Information Commission (MIC), in a landmark decision on February 27, 2023, mandated the disclosure of sought-after information. Despite the MIC’s directive, L. Saratchandra Singh persisted in his resistance, precipitating a legal showdown in the Manipur High Court.
Meanwhile, inquiries into LDA’s records yielded no traces of L. Saratchandra Singh, further complicating efforts to foster transparency. As the subsequent appeals process unfolds, it underscores the resolute pursuit of accountability.
The evolving narrative underscores fundamental concerns regarding governmental transparency and the probity of public appointments. The reluctance to furnish essential documentation serves to deepen existing suspicions, underscoring the imperative for transparency and accountability in public office. As the legal battle ensues, its ramifications for governance and public trust loom large.
