Industry worried over recruits after cash for marks scandal
Cos Unsure Of Quality Of Staff Taken In From Esteemed Univ

Siddharth.Prabhakar@timesgroup.com

Chennai:05.08.2018

The re-evaluation scam busted in Anna University has opened a can of worms about how tens of thousands of students might have bribed professors to gain additional marks, sometimes converting a fail into a pass grade. This has sparked a worrisome debate among a section of the industry executives in Tamil Nadu, who hire students by the droves from the university and its affiliated colleges.

Second and third-tier affiliated colleges are also worried that the fallout of the scam will hit them hard during placement season.

Industry sources said top CEOs who design products and services for clients in countries like the UK and the US employing graduates from Anna University, are bracing for tough questions they could face regarding their ethics and quality of employees.

This is because, a 60% pass mark is the primary filter for multinational corporations (MNCs) while hiring in bulk from colleges. With the re-evaluation scam showing that even students who have scored in single digits could have bulked their scores to above 70, the marksheet might not reflect the true potential of the candidates.

Across India, there are five main universities that top companies look into for bulk hiring and four of these are in TN. Of them, Anna University is the biggest talent pool. Though top companies have a rigorous training programmes which filter out students without aptitude, executives say students selected based on fudged marks would have eaten into an honest student’s job opportunity. “It is also a waste of time and money spent on the selection process,” an executive said.

“75% of the employees of an Indian company which has taken up a project for a foreign country’s government comprises of Anna University graduates. The company’s CEO is worried,” said an industry executive.

The question on everyone’s mind is for how long the scam has been going on. “It is time to check the system and process at this acclaimed university. It is an opportunity to reclaim and regain the glory,” said K Purushottaman, senior director at Nasscom.

Shashikanth Jayaraman, an HR professional, said that manufacturing industries would not be too worried as they don’t recruit in droves. “Even if a candidate with fudged marks lands a job, he will be found wanting in required skillsets within a short period of time,” he said. Jayaraman added that Tamil Nadu’s image as a good talent pool could take a hit by the scam.

Schoolgirl ‘holds’ umbrella for teachers for more than an hour, collector orders report

A.Selvaraj@timesgroup.com

Chennai:05.08.2018

A Class IX girl was forced to hold an umbrella for more than an hour to shield two teachers from the sun when they were monitoring a zonal level khokho competition at the government higher secondary school for boys in Arakkonam on August 1. The issue came to light after a few TV channels telecast the event, following which footage was circulated on social media, including WhatsApp, causing outrage over the harassment.

A senior official in the district collectorate said, “We will react only after getting a detailed statement from the chief educational officer. If we confirm that the student was harassed, we will initiate legal action against the teachers.” Officials refused to divulge the names of the teachers and the student.

A police officer said, “We are yet to receive a complaint on the student being harassed. If we receive any complaint from the student or her parents, we will take action against the teachers.”

Speaking to TOI, Vellore collector S A Raman said, “One of the teachers works at the CSI Central higher secondary (aided) school in Arakkonam, while the other works at the VGN Matriculation higher secondary school in Arakkonam.”

He added that he inquired into the issue through the Arakkonam district education officer. “I have instructed the correspondents of the schools concerned to initiate action against the teachers. I am awaiting a report from the correspondents,” said Raman.



SPOILSPORTS: A Class IX girl shields two teachers during a zonal level kho-kho competition at the government higher secondary school for boys in Arakkonam on August 1

CCB can file FIR though it is not a ‘police station’, rules HC

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Chennai: 05.08.2018

Is the Central Crime Branch (CCB) a police station as defined in Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)? Can it register FIR?

Answering this tricky question, the Madras high court has made it clear that special magistrate courts are empowered to direct the CCB to register FIR on complaints, though the CCB is not a police station as defined by the CrPC.

“The jurisdiction of the magistrate for CCB cases extends throughout the metropolitan area. This territorial jurisdiction appears to be co-extensive with the territorial jurisdiction of the CCB. Moreover, when once the magistrate has power to take cognizance on the final report filed by the CCB, they would automatically have power to order investigation,” ruled Justice R Suresh Kumar.

He made the clarification on two separate revision pleas moved by D Ramesh and M Chezhieyan challenging a magistrate court order dated January 25, rejecting Dinesh’s plea to direct CCB to file FIR on his complaint of cheating to the tune of ₹1crore.

Dinesh is into construction business in Chennai. He was allegedly cheated by V Vijayakumar and Thomas Pandian of Tirunelveli of ₹1.10 crore after promising to arrange ₹25 crore as loan for his business. As his repeated attempts to get back his money from the duo failed, Dinesh approached the Chennai police commissioner’s office and preferred a compliant. The same was forwarded to CCB. Refusing to file an FIR on his complaint, CCB suggested him to approach civil court for recovery of money.

Aggrieved Dinesh moved a complaint before the special judicial magistrate for CCB cases seeking to direct the CCB to file an FIR.

But the magistrate rejected the complaint on the ground that the magistrate can direct investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC only to an officer in-charge of a police station that falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

Neither the office of commissioner of police which is in-charge of CCB nor any officer of CCB would be deemed to be officer incharge of a police station, the magistrate ruled. Refusing to concur with the findings of the magistrate, Justice Suresh Kumar made the present clarification.

ST THOMAS MOUNT STATION ACCIDENT

Southern Rly deposits ₹42L for victims, but no claimants
Amount Remitted Prior To Deadline In July 24 Train Footboard Case

Siddharth.Prabhakar@timesgroup.com

Chennai:05.08.2018

Southern Railway deposited ₹42 lakh into the account of Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT)’s Chennai bench on Friday night, to be paid as suo motu compensation to those killed and injured in the accident at St Thomas Mount station on July 24, a senior RCT official said.

However, the RCT is in a quandary as none of the beneficiary families has contacted them so far to claim the amount.

“Southern Railway was given a deadline of August 17. However, it has acted quickly and remitted the amount well before the deadline. We had given a press news asking for the beneficiaries to contact us and also intimated the Government Railway Police (GRP) and Railway Protection Force (RPF) if the families contacted them. But no-one has come forward so far,” the official said.

On July 24, 10 people travelling on footboard of a train from Chennai Beach to Chengalpet were hit by a cement fence at platform 3 of St Thomas Mount station. While five died

after falling on the railway tracks, the rest suffered injuries.

The RCT, in a rare order on July 24, had directed that ₹8 lakh each be deposited for the dead and ₹2 lakh each for the injured. It was the first order of its kind where the railways was asked to pay compensation even before a formal application was made by the victims and the families of the deceased.

RCT had noted that commuters were forced to travel on footboard as the trains were crowded during peak-hour rush. This was completely opposite to what railway officials claimed – that they were not at fault for the death of the commuters.

RCT has directed that the applications can be filled in with details of dependants of the deceased and the tribunal will be flexible to allow changes in the applications if details are disclosed later.

The tribunal has also ordered to release ₹2 lakh each (for the deceased) and ₹50,000 each (for the injured) from the amount deposited. This will be adjusted against the final outcome of the award when the full particulars are gathered.

The parties concerned were directed to contact the tribunal functioning at ‘Fresh Ford’, 50, McNichols Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031for any further information.



HOLDING ON FOR DEAR LIFE

MIRED IN LARGER CONTROVERSY

Now, Anna University’s transcripts deal with pvt firm under scanner

Ram Sundaram & Siddharth Prabhakar TNN

Chennai:05.08.2018

An internal committee of Anna University set up by vice-chancellor M K Surappa is investigating a Memorandum of Understanding signed by suspended professor GV Uma during her tenure as controller of examinations (CoE), with Chennai-based start-up Myeasydocs which provides transcripts online.

The committee is also looking into suspected irregularities committed during Uma’s tenure as CoE from March 2015 to 2018.

The committee collected relevant documents and carried out an inquiry with the firm recently to check if the university bylaws had been followed when the MoU was inked in  March 2016, during M Rajaram’s tenure as vice-chancellor, multiple sources from the government told TOI.

As the committee is not convinced with the firm’s reply in connection with the substantial revenue collected by it for providing transcripts online, it may recommend termination of the MoU. In its place, a recently developed in-house online portal may be put to use.

Transcripts, which contain students’ consolidated marksheets and other academic details attested by authorities, are pre-requisites when a candidate applies for universities abroad. Some corporate firms in India also insist on transcripts as a part of their due diligence procedures.

‘PORTAL AMATEURISH’

Company’s founder claims it is ‘evolving’, says it will get better

On an average, close to 15,000 students from Anna University apply for transcripts every year, according to official data. In order to help former students settled abroad, the university in 2016 reportedly introduced an online portal to help them get these transcripts.

The MoU allows myeasydocs to collect an amount on a par with the application fee (₹200-₹500 per person) as processing fee from candidates. The MoU was valid for three years.

A senior university official said the portal was amateurish compared to the other options available in-house and the market. “The firm provided printouts of the filled-in online application forms and uploaded the final document after the CoE office handed it over. This doesn’t warrant such a high processing fee,” he said.

When contacted by TOI, Avira Thakran, founder and chief executive officer of myeasydocs who signed the MoU on behalf of the firm, said it was an ‘evolving process’ and that they were making their portal better.

“It was unfortunate that we got encircled in the ongoing controversy at Anna University at a time when we are doing well with other universities, including University of Calicut, Kannur University and Stella Maris College. We were facing losses because of our Anna University operations and we are ready to wind up if the MoU is terminated,” said Thakran. Students would suffer if the firm’s services were terminated as they would have to travel all the way from the US, Canada or Dubai to get their documents manually at university counters in Chennai, he said.

University sources said the firm had access to personal data of former students and advertised them through phone calls. Thakran rejected this allegation stating that the firm’s database had contact numbers of only those who inquired with them. However, a parent told TOI he had never approached myeasydocs for assistance, but received an advertisement call from it.

The firm’s website claims other state-run varsities like University of Madras and Bharathiar University were on board with it. But, when contacted University of Madras vice-chancellor P Duraisamy said the university did not have an MoU with the firm and that they would investigate the web link.

To this, Thakran said their relationship with University of Madras was ‘unofficial’. “We only help students to get the documents by taking an authorisation letter from them allowing the firm to take care of their work,” he said. University officials said there was no provision for such an arrangement.

Madras HC: Birth dates in school certificates can’t be changed 

DECCAN CHRONICLE.

Published Aug 5, 2018, 2:41 am IST

The petitioner approached the court stating that her parents gave wrong date of birth during admission into first standard.

 
Madras high court.

Chennai: Madras high court has dismissed a plea from a petitioner to alter date of birth mentioned in class 10 and plus-2 school certificates. The petitioner approached the court stating that her parents gave wrong date of birth during admission into first standard.

In the writ petition, S. Indhumathi submitted that she was born on July 17, 1997 in Madurai. However, she claimed that date of birth in certificates in X and XII standards had mentioned as May 17, 1997, instead of July 17. The record with the Corporation of Madurai has the original date of birth.

She made a representation to the school education department to modify her date of birth in her school certificates on April 20. As there was no response, she filed the petition before the court.

The counsel for the department said that such correction cannot be done as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Secondary Education Certificate Rules. The petitioner might have given an incorrect date of birth to secure admission in first standard.

Justice S Vaidyanathan said “If the date of birth is altered then the entire qualifications possessed by the petitioner would become invalid as she would not have had the required age eligibility to join class I with the altered date of birth. The court cannot even decide the issue based on sympathy, as it will give a premium for everyone to knock at the doors of the court to alter date of birth.”

He said, “If the actual date of birth as claimed by the petitioner is taken into account, then the entire qualification obtained by the petitioner will have to go, as she could not have been admitted in Class I during that point of time based on the original date of birth.”

Madras high court orders Kamaraj college to hold exam for student 

DECCAN CHRONICLE.

Published Aug 5, 2018, 2:39 am IST

The Additional Government Pleader submitted that the examination was scheduled on May 28 and the hall ticket was sent to her on May 26. 


Madras high court.

Chennai: Madras high court has directed Kamaraj College of Education to conduct fresh examination for a student who was unable to appear in examination as internet facilities were snapped in view of May 22 anti-Sterlite protest in Thoothukudi.

In the petition, A. Ramya, a student of Kamaraj College of Education, Kanyakumari district, submitted that she was denied permission to appear in the examination held on May 28 last, as she did not receive the hall ticket before the examination. She had paid necessary fees and no dues were pending against her. She also got sufficient attendance to appear in the examination.

However, the Additional Government Pleader submitted that the examination was scheduled on May 28 and the hall ticket was sent to her on May 26. Due to the Thoothukudi incidents, all internet portals could not be opened on the website. Hence, the hall ticket did not reach the petitioner on time. Again, it was sent to her on May 28 (the date of examination). However, the hall ticket had reached the petitioner only after the examination was over.

Disposing of a writ petition, Justice S. Vaidyanathan said that taking note of the facts, the petitioner is not in fault. She shall be permitted to take up the examination on the subject which she did not write on account of the non-holding of the hall ticket, which is not due to her fault. A fresh examination shall be conducted for the subject at the same centre. The special examination should not be treated as a supplementary one.