CHENNAI: The state government’s decision to appoint IAS officer P Alarmelmangai as the member secretary of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) has raised concerns over whether the appointment was made in accordance with statutory requirements.
The G.O. issued on Thursday appointed Dr P Alarmelmangai, currently executive director of Guidance, as TNPCB member secretary. The appointment assumes significance, as the qualifications for the post of member secretary are governed not by administrative instructions but by statutory rules framed by the state government itself.
In May 2019, the state government notified the Appointment of Chairman and Member Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Rules, 2019 through an extraordinary gazette under powers conferred by the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
The rules state that no person shall be appointed as member secretary unless he or she possesses “qualification, knowledge and experience of scientific, engineering or management aspects of pollution control”. They further prescribe that the appointee must hold a postgraduate degree in environmental engineering, technology or allied sciences and have 25 years of field experience in environmental protection and enforcement of environmental legislation.
However, according to the Executive Record Sheet available on the Department of Personnel and Training portal, Alarmelmangai belongs to the 2019 batch of the Indian Administrative Service and was recruited through direct recruitment.
She holds an MBBS degree from Tamil Nadu Dr MGR. Medical University. Her service record does not indicate any postgraduate qualification in environmental engineering, technology or allied sciences, as required under the 2019 rules.
The appointment comes despite repeated observations by courts that state pollution control boards are specialised regulatory institutions that require technical expertise rather than general administrative experience.
In 2017, the National Green Tribunal directed the chairpersons of ten state pollution control boards, including Tamil Nadu, to relinquish their posts after finding that their appointments did not conform to prescribed norms. Although the Supreme Court subsequently set aside the NGT order on the ground that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, it concurred with the broader concerns raised by the tribunal.
The apex court observed pollution control boards across the country continued to be manned by individuals who did not necessarily possess the expertise or professional experience needed to address the environmental issues for which the bodies had been established.
“The response of the state governments in appointing professionals and experts to the SPCBs has been remarkably casual, despite many expert committees pointing out the need for it,” the Supreme Court noted.
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, envisage pollution control boards as specialised institutions entrusted with monitoring industrial pollution, enforcing environmental standards and safeguarding public health.
While the statutes require chairpersons to possess “special knowledge or practical experience” in environmental protection, member secretaries are required to have qualifications, knowledge and experience in the scientific, engineering or management aspects of pollution control and serve on a full-time basis.
When contacted, a senior bureaucrat told TNIE the 2019 rules are applicable for candidates, who are appointed through the selection process, not for officials deputed from All India Services.
TNIE could not get a response from Environment Minister V Rajeev on the issue. His PA received the call and said the issue would be communicated to the minister.
