Back
Denies , Files Police Complaint Amid Inquiry
(the university) has firmly denied allegations of irregularities in its recent recruitment of 12 Assistant Professor (Law) posts and has filed a police complaint against what it terms "." The move comes amid a parallel inquiry by the and at least two separate complaints raising serious questions about transparency, compliance with ) regulations, and potential favoritism involving the Vice Chancellor.
The controversy erupted after the university conducted interviews for the Assistant Professor positions between
and
this year. Within weeks, the
's Additional Law Remembrancer—who also serves as a member of the university's
)
—sought detailed records and explanations from the Registrar regarding the selection process. According to sources, the Additional Law Remembrancer’s letter pointed out that
"complete information regarding the appointments was not placed before the
during its meeting on
,"
leading him and another
member to abstain from voting on the appointments.
The letter further questioned whether the shortlisting and formation of the selection committee adhered to regulations, and whether an academic-score chart in the prescribed format had been prepared. These queries strike at the heart of the recruitment process, raising doubts about the of the selections.
Allegations of Bias and Favoritism
Separately, a complaint reportedly addressed to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh alleged that three of the Vice Chancellor’s former students were among those selected. This allegation—if substantiated—could indicate a or in the selection process. Another complaint, sent to the Chairman and copied to legal media, specifically sought a and called for an independent inquiry. The complaint claimed that the candidate’s joining was permitted without the Registrar’s signature, a that could invalidate the appointment.
The same complaint also questioned the Vice Chancellor’s overall role in the process and expressed fears that records may have been altered after initial objections were raised. It alleged pressure on university officials and requested the to independently verify the candidate’s EWS (Economically Weaker Sections) certificate against specified academic criteria. Such allegations, if true, would not only violate guidelines but also undermine the credibility of the entire selection process.
University’s Defense and Police Complaint
In response, the university issued a note denying any irregularities and characterized the press reports as defamatory. It subsequently filed a police complaint, signaling its intent to pursue legal action against those it believes are spreading false information. By taking this step, is attempting to protect its institutional reputation and preempt any further reputational damage.
However, the police complaint does not address the substantive allegations raised by the Additional Law Remembrancer and the complainants. It focuses solely on the defamatory nature of the coverage, leaving the procedural questions unresolved. This dual track—legal action against the press alongside a government inquiry—creates an unusual tension: while the university asserts its innocence, it also seeks to suppress public discussion of the allegations.
Legal Implications and the Road Ahead
From a legal perspective, the core issue revolves around compliance with Regulations on minimum qualifications and selection procedures for faculty positions. The ’s 2018 regulations mandate transparent and merit-based selection, including the preparation of academic score charts and the formation of selection committees with external experts. Any deviation from these norms can render appointments void and expose the university to legal challenges.
The involvement of the —a government body—adds an administrative law dimension. If the inquiry finds procedural lapses, the department could recommend disciplinary action against officials or even cancellation of the appointments. Moreover, the Vice Chancellor’s role in allegedly influencing the selection of former students raises questions under the and .
Another critical aspect is the validity of the EWS certificate. The has specific guidelines for verifying such certificates, and any irregularity could lead to the candidate’s disqualification. An independent inquiry by the could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.
For legal practitioners, this case highlights the importance of strict adherence to statutory regulations in public appointments. It also underscores the potential legal risks for institutions that fail to maintain transparent records or allow personal connections to influence hiring decisions. If the police complaint proceeds, may also come into play, requiring the university to prove on the part of the media.
Ultimately, the controversy at is a cautionary tale for universities across India. The outcome of the inquiry and any court proceedings will be closely watched, as they could shape future practices in faculty recruitment and regulatory oversight in higher education.
