Cuttack, March 24: A PIL on non-implementation of the Centre’s order for appointment of ombudsman in all districts for redressing grievances with regard to implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme has been filed in Orissa High Court.

The PIL has sought a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in the appointment process adopted so far. The state government has already been embroiled in a controversy over irregularities involving diversion of the MGNREGS funds with the Supreme Court seeking view of the central government regarding its stand on the CBI probe. Advocate Ashis Kumar Mishra filed the petition on behalf of Gopal Chandra Satpathy (40), a resident of Nabarangpur.

The state government was to implement the central government order, issued on September 7, 2009, within three months by appointing ombudsman in every district for timely redressing grievance arising in regard to implementation of the scheme.

However, appointment of ombudsman was not done in 13 districts even as the Centre had stressed on need for an independent authority to ensure transparency and accountability, the cardinal principles underlying the implementation of the scheme, it stated.

The Centre had made it clear that rising number of grievances in implementation of the scheme warranted strengthening of the administrative machinery for disposal of grievances to secure the ends of justice. The expenditure incurred for this purpose was to be met out of provision for administrative expenditure under the plan, the rural development department at the Centre had specified in its order.

According to the petition, chief secretary-cum-chairman of the Ombudsman Selection Committee conducted interview on June 21, 2010 for 12 districts and did not call the candidates of other districts as the recommendation of these districts had not reached him. The names of selected candidates were declared on June 26, 2010.

After four months the committee chairman called for an interview for candidates of the rest of the districts, but names of the selected candidates of five districts were declared on October 30, 2010.

Questioning the rationale behind not selecting candidates for 13 districts, the petition stated that the selection of the Ombudsman was conducted in a “mala fide manner to favour some particular group of people and the selection process was manipulated”.