PART - II
“Relaxing the rules for
some and not for other SC/ST candidates would tantamount to a mockery of the
great affirmative aims of a special recruitment drive.”
Prof Kamal Poddar (another
reserved category professor of IITK) in his submissions to National Commission
for Scheduled Castes
An Assistant Professor in the Department of
Aerospace Engineering, Prof. S. Saderla, had alleged in early 2018 that he was
harassed and discriminated based on his caste by:
- Four senior faculty in particular;
- Board members of IIT Kanpur;
- The Faculty Forum of IIT Kanpur, as alleged in
press reports;
- Finally, its Senate.
He alleges that he was knowingly, wilfully harassed
by faculty of his own Department as well as other Departments because of his
caste. Several actions taken or recommended based on his allegations by institutional
mechanisms like NCSC, IIT Kanpur as well as the Police have currently been
stayed by the Allahabad High Court. The then Officiating Director, Prof.
Manindra Agrawal and the Head of the
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Prof. A.K Ghosh strongly believe that the
allegation of discrimination is valid. As the then Officiating Director and
Head of the Department, their decisions played a strong role in the recruitment
of Dr. Saderla. It was their responsibility to ensure that due diligence was
followed in the recruitment process. Both of them have repeatedly stated in
various committees and newspaper reports that no procedural irregularity took
place in the recruitment procedure.
However, faculty, students, staff and even the faculty spouses on IIT Kanpur campus believe that this entire case is a witch hunt to punish the whistle blowers who pointed out serious lapses in the recruitment process, silence the voices of dissent, and settle personal scores. After two inquiries, two NCSC reports, and one FIR, and over fourteen months of intense stress, these four faculty members continue to stand by what they are convinced is the truth. Now, the entire Faculty Forum is fearlessly calling for the resignation of Prof. Manindra Agrawal and Prof. A.K Ghosh for abusing their positions and vitiating the atmosphere of the Institute. The Faculty Forum resolved that the conduct of Prof. A.K Ghosh and Prof. Manindra Agrawal should be investigated for violation of official conduct rules. These officials should be divested of their official responsibilities with immediate effect.
However, faculty, students, staff and even the faculty spouses on IIT Kanpur campus believe that this entire case is a witch hunt to punish the whistle blowers who pointed out serious lapses in the recruitment process, silence the voices of dissent, and settle personal scores. After two inquiries, two NCSC reports, and one FIR, and over fourteen months of intense stress, these four faculty members continue to stand by what they are convinced is the truth. Now, the entire Faculty Forum is fearlessly calling for the resignation of Prof. Manindra Agrawal and Prof. A.K Ghosh for abusing their positions and vitiating the atmosphere of the Institute. The Faculty Forum resolved that the conduct of Prof. A.K Ghosh and Prof. Manindra Agrawal should be investigated for violation of official conduct rules. These officials should be divested of their official responsibilities with immediate effect.
For last fourteen months, over several spurts of
media outbursts, one has heard the story of harassment of Dr. Saderla and even
his family in minute chronological details. However, for last fourteen months,
not once have the four alleged faculty members- Profs. C.S.Upadhya, Sanjay
Mittal, Rajiv Shekhar and Ishan Sharma spoken a word. They don’t make any press
releases defending and justifying their actions, give no quotes to newspaper.
There is not even that elusive line- XYZ was unavailable for comments, but, what
does speak for them is the Indian judicial system. They have been given four
stays in fourteen months by the Honourable High Court of Allahabad against the
actions of NCSC, IIT Kanpur and now the police. More recently, one hears that
the court has summoned data from IIT Kanpur in response to one of their writs. The
data provided in their writs at the court, a few RTIs, and documents available
on the IIT Kanpur website exposes some graver issues that need public attention
because they raise serious concerns about the transparency, accountability and
fairness of recruitment processes in Institutes of National Importance.
Especially, when it involves a special recruitment drive for SC, ST, OBC, and
PwD (Divyang).
Affirmative Action
Recruitment Drive Vitiated through Nepotism
IIT Kanpur advertised the minimum eligibility
qualification in the Special Recruitment Drive (advertisement number DF-4/2017) through which
Dr. S. Saderla applied in 2017, as:
“Ph.D. with first class or equivalent (in terms of grades) at the
preceding degree in the appropriate branch, with a very good academic record
throughout.”
You can all read this on the
website of IIT Kanpur. https://www.iitk.ac.in/dofa/current-openings.
It is claimed on several fora, and by the Officiating
Director, Prof. Agrawal, that Dr. S.
Saderla whose Ph.D CPI is 7.0 meets
the advertised minimum eligibility criteria of the Special Recruitment Drive. But,
on the other hand, the contention according to
some faculty members was that 7.0 CPI is not
equivalent to first class in IIT Kanpur and, therefore, the Department of
Aerospace Engineering flouted minimum eligibility norms during the Special
Recruitment Drive. Thus, the selection, led by
Prof. Agrawal, provided relaxation selectively to a candidate who happened also
to be the Masters and Ph. D. student of the Head of the Department, Prof. A.K
Ghosh. As is apparent, providing relaxation selectively to a single
candidate and not to others, is a discrimination
against all other reserved category
candidates. According to the ex-Liaison Officer of IIT Kanpur, relaxing the
rules for some and not for other SC/ST candidates “tantamounts to a mockery of
the great affirmative aims of a special recruitment drive.”
It is surprising that for over
fourteen months, an Institute of higher learning, having highly educated and
decorated faculty and administrators has not been able to examine its own documents
and practices to figure out whether or not 7.0 CPI is equivalent to first
class. Even the two external committees led by Prof. Pathak and Hon’ble Justice
Siddiqui have nothing to comment on this matter. The silence of the Board of
Governors is even more deafening. IIT Kanpur would not be torn apart today, if
someone could simply follow the norms laid down transparently in the grading
scheme. Is this rocket science?
The PG manual (Institute approved
Post Graduate manual prescribing academic norms which can be accessed here - https://www.iitk.ac.in/doaa/data/pgmanual-02Sep2015.pdf)
of IIT Kanpur says the following: minimum CPI requirement for continuing in the Ph.D
programme is 7.0.
That is, the minimum
graduating CPI is 7. This implies that, if Dr. Saderla had a CPI of 6.99 he
would not have been awarded a Ph.D
degree by IIT Kanpur. The Ph.D CPI of Dr. Saderla is exactly 7.0.
Thus, Dr.
Saderla barely met the minimum passing requirements of IIT Kanpur. Can a minimum passing mark be
considered equivalent to a first class in any academic system, let alone an
IIT?
Moreover, not only does Dr.
Saderla not have first class in his Ph.D, he was on academic probation in the
first semester of his M.Tech. He had a CPI of
6.0 — for which, as per the PG manual rules (- https://www.iitk.ac.in/doaa/data/pgmanual-02Sep2015.pdf), he should have been issued a warning
letter from the then Head of the Department. According to the testimony of
one of his M.Tech Professors, Dr. Saderla got a ‘D’ grade in his departmental course
and his performance was not very
good.
However, for the sake of an argument, even if it is assumed that the
appointee was given relaxation (which was not advertised), the UGC
guidelines permit only a 5% relaxation from the minimal requirement. In this
case, even if we assume the minimal requirement to be Grade B (CPI 8) described
as ‘Good’ in the IIT Kanpur academic system, then 5% of 8 is 7.6 CPI. Thus, Dr.
Saderla, even after relaxation does not meet the minimal requirement, as
his CPI is 7.0 in Ph.D.
Does IIT Kanpur, an Institute indebted
to the Indian taxpayer not owe a clarification to ALL aspiring and
desiring SC-ST candidates on what its minimum qualification requirements are?
Why does IIT Kanpur along with all other
IITs simply not announce that 7.0 CPI is first class?
Why does IIT Kanpur not fill all its
faculty posts with candidates having a CPI of 7.0 in their Ph.D? Why is there just one amongst 400 faculty who
has a CPI 7.0?
It is interesting to observe the record of the academic qualifications
of General and Reserved category candidates selected in the Department of
Aerospace Engineering since 2016. Here, it is important to emphasize that the advertised minimum eligibility requirements for
General candidates is NOT different from the Reserved category candidates; at
IIT Kanpur, they are one and the same. Check it out for yourself on the website
- https://www.iitk.ac.in/dofa/current-openings.
Information revealed through RTIs clearly show (see table below) that no
candidate -- General or Reserved category -- below a CPI of 8.5 has been
shortlisted for final interviews by IIT Kanpur in the Department of Aerospace
Engineering since 2016. The only
exception being Dr. Saderla whose CPI is 7.0 – the minimum passing mark for a
Ph. D. at IIT Kanpur! The aberration is unexplainable,
unless the advertised minimum
eligibility norms were indeed selectively relaxed for the student (Dr. Saderla)
of the Head of the Department, Prof. A.K Ghosh. But, relaxation itself was not
advertised. In fact, information obtained through RTIs makes it amply clear
that IIT Kanpur did not state any relaxation policy in its advertisement.
Name
|
Category
|
Educational Qualification (Converted to CPI out of 10.0
or percentage)
|
Candidate 1
|
GN
|
M.Tech- 9.82
Ph.D- 9.84
|
Candidate 2
|
GN
|
M.E- 9.8
Ph.D- 10.0
|
Candidate 3
|
GN
|
M.Tech., 9.75
Ph.D-9.74
|
Candidate 4
|
SC
|
M.Tech., 7.25
Ph.D- 7.0
|
Candidate 5
|
OBC
|
M.Tech., 8.7
Ph.D- 10.0
|
Candidate 6
|
GN
|
M.Tech., 9.75
Ph.D-10.0
|
Candidate 7
|
GN
|
M.Tech., 10.0
Ph.D-10.0
|
Candidate 8
|
GN
|
M.Tech., 9.4
Ph.D- 9.6
|
Candidate 9
|
GN
|
M.Tech., 8.79
Ph.D-10.0
|
Candidate 10
|
OBC
|
Ph.D- 8.5
|
Candidate 11
|
GN
|
M.Tech., 91.3%
Ph.D- 9.0
|
Such aberrations were noticed by several faculty within the Department
of Aerospace Engineering after Dr. Saderla joined the Institute. Eleven faculty
of the Department expressed it in writing to the then Officiating Director,
Prof. Manindra Agrawal. They said:
"We the
undersigned faculty members of Aerospace Engineering would like to communicate
to you our extreme displeasure at the way the department faculty advisory
committee and Head ignored the faculty inputs and concerns and went ahead with
their recommendations for the recent selections held in December 2017, to the
posts of Assistant Professor in AE to the Institute committee."
How is anyone’s caste, creed, religion, gender or any other divisive trait
attributed or interpreted in this communication? It simply
reflects an apprehension that could easily have been addressed by the then
Officiating Director, Prof. Manindra Agrawal or the Head, Prof AK Ghosh.
Unfortunately they didn’t/couldn’t do so. Their failure to address these lapses
and take corrective measures has today cost IIT Kanpur its academic image that
has been tattered in the media.
Instead of addressing the concerns raised by the Department faculty, the
Officiating Director turned the entire case into a caste issue. Prof. Kamal Poddar is one of the eleven signatories of
the letter mentioned above. He is a very senior and well respected faculty of
the Department of Aerospace Engineering. Few know that he himself belongs to a reserved
category because IITs pride themselves in being concerned with merit alone, and
nothing else. Belonging to the same department as Dr. Saderla, he has
first-hand knowledge of this issue. He was also the Institute Liaison Officer
for the SC-ST cell when Dr. Saderla was recruited, in which capacity he corresponded
with the National Commission of Scheduled Castes on this matter. He informed NCSC,
in writing, that he did not
find any caste issue in this episode. All
interactions of Dr. Saderla with the faculty have been cordial. In fact, the
Department faculty have hugged and welcomed Prof. Saderla.
To quote
from Prof Kamal Poddar’s letter to NCSC,
“Here is what
I think has happened: Several faculty flagged the possibility of violation
of advertised minimum eligibility norms and the possibility of conflict
of interest as the Head (Prof. A. K Ghosh), who is also Prof. Saderla's
adviser, being involved in all committees of the selection process. These
issues were flagged privately to the Director (through Head), by email to only
Board members, and over a restricted Senators only list. This was I repeat,
only concern raised about the possibility of violation of advertised minimum
eligibility norms and conflict of interest. Because, relaxing the rules for
some and not for other SC/ST candidates would tantamount to a mockery of the
great affirmative aims of a special recruitment drive. Nothing in these
private notes/mails was specific to a person, leave alone person's caste.”
Instead of listening to the testimony and evidence of its own officer
(Office of the Liaison Officer is expected to assist NCSC in the investigation
of complaints as mandated by DoPT), NCSC recommended in its minutes dated
10-04-2018 to remove him from his post. Of course, such an overreach and unfair
judgement lacking any evidence by the NCSC could not escape the eyes of the Honourable
High Court of Allahabad which immediately stayed the order. But, it still makes
you wonder Who is harassing whom? And is this
a caste issue at all? considering
that the NCSC prefers the version of one SC person (Dr. Saderla) over another
(Prof. Poddar, LO, IIT Kanpur); the former backed by upper castes (the
Officiating Director and Head of Department), to protect his recruitment while the
latter questioning it, to protect his Department and his Institute from
nepotism, and the wider SC, ST, OBC and
PwD candidates from
discrimination in the form of unequal opportunities. Clearly, this is not
a caste issue but one of transparency and equity as Dr Poddar said, but for
which he was rapped by the NCSC itself.
If Relaxation Was not Advertised, Was it Implemented?
If IIT Kanpur had clearly advertised in its
recruitment policy that applicants with 7.0 CPI are eligible to apply, more
SC-ST candidates would have applied in response to the special recruitment
drive. All SC-ST candidates who had
similar or better qualifications than that of Dr. Saderla, but did not apply for the post because they did not possess a First Class in their Ph.D
or M.Tech have been deprived of an opportunity to apply, compete and be hired
at IIT Kanpur. All eligible SC-ST
candidates with a 7.0 CPI have been discriminated against by IIT Kanpur by following
a selection criteria that was not advertised to the public.
IIT Kanpur has discriminated against all eligible SC-ST candidates, by bending
its selection norms and procedures to accommodate the student of the Head of
the Department of Aerospace Engineering. Do
all SC-ST candidates have to be students of HoD A.K. Ghosh and Director Agrawal
to be hired in the IITs?
This preferential and privileged treatment given to
the student of Prof. A.K Ghosh in full support of Prof. Manindra Agrawal (who
chairs the Selection Committee) seems even more discriminating when you look at
the CPI of the other SC-ST candidates who applied during the Special
Recruitment Drive. In
response to an RTI (see Table 2), IIT Kanpur has admitted that there were four
SC-ST candidates who applied in the Special Recruitment Drive for a position in
the Department of Aerospace Engineering. Even though Dr. Saderla only had a CPI
of 7.0, IIT Kanpur selected him over two other candidates who had a CPI of 8.2
and 8.25 in their Ph.D. The other SC-ST candidates were not even shortlisted,
let alone interviewed and selected for the post despite their obviously better
CPI than Dr. Saderla. One had heard of discrimination between General
and Reserved category, but this is a novel blatant misuse of reservation by
elite castes to discriminate and favour selected reserved category candidates
only. IIT Kanpur has taken caste-based discrimination to yet another level. It
has pitched a Dalit against another Dalit.
Table 2: Marks of all candidates who applied for
the Special Recruitment Drive of IIT Kanpur
No
|
Degree
|
Marks
|
Shortlisted
|
Interviewed
|
Selected
|
1
|
Bachelor of
Engineering
Nagpur
University
|
76
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Master of
Engineering
Shivaji
University
|
75.2
|
||||
Doctor of
Philosophy
Indian
Institute of Technology Kanpur
|
8.2
|
||||
2
|
Bachelor of
Technology
Rohilkhand University
|
6.70
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Master of
Technology
IIT Guwahati
|
6.83
|
||||
Doctor of
Philosophy
University of
Liverpool
|
NA
|
||||
3
|
Bachelor of
Technology
JNTU Hyderabad
|
75.86
|
Shortlisted
|
Interviewed
|
Selected
|
Master of
Technology
Indian
Institute of Technology Kanpur
|
7.25
|
||||
Doctor of
Philosophy
Indian
Institute of Technology Kanpur
|
7
|
||||
4
|
Bachelor of
Technology
Jawaharlal Nehru
Technological University College of Engineering
|
52.71
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Master of Engineering
Andhra
University College of Engineering
|
7.88
|
||||
Doctor of
Philosophy
Indian
Institute of Technology Guwahati
|
8.25
|
This fraudulent
practice and
the blatant misuse of the affirmative actions of the SC-ST reservation has also
been recorded in the Supreme Court judgment in the District Collector, Vizianagram vs. M. Tripura Sundari
Devi (1990(4) SLR 237. The Honourable Supreme Court states in
its judgement
“It must further be realized by all concerned that when an
advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in
disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority
and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had
similar or better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had
not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications
mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to
appoint a person with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless
it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No
Court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice.”
Both Prof. Manindra Agrawal, Chair of the Selection
Committee and Prof. A.K Ghosh, member of the selection committee which recruited
Dr. Saderla in writing have confirmed that requirements of academic
qualifications were indeed relaxed for Dr. Saderla.
Statement
of Head, Aerospace Engineering:
“Dr. Saderla has M.Tech CPI=7.25 (well above graduating CPI), PhD CPI=7.0 and
thesis of good quality (paper from PhD=6). Yes
for general candidate, we would not have short listed the candidate.
This point was clearly mentioned in DFAC-IFAC meeting. This being special drive and for SC category DFAC-IFAC agreed to
take it for interview.” (Emphasis added)
Statement
of Officiating Director, IIT Kanpur on the Head’s statement:
“… the department would not shortlist a candidate with
this record in case of general category candidates. However, given that this was recruitment in special category,
some relaxation was done during
shortlisting. In other words, he [Head, AE] is saying that the
candidate does meet minimum qualifications, however, for general category
candidates, shortlisting is done with more stringent norms which were not
applied in this case.” (Emphasis added)
But, we all know by now that relaxation was not
advertised, therefore, it could not have been selectively offered to the
student of Prof. A.K Ghosh. This, as the Supreme Court judgement emphasised is
a fraudulent practice for which both Prof. Manindra Agrawal and Prof. A.K Ghosh
are liable to face a disciplinary inquiry. Of course, such an enquiry, if held
impartially, will also nullify the Special Recruitment Drive, further implying
that Dr. Saderla will have to re-apply whenever a fresh advertisement is
floated by IIT Kanpur. With this as a background, does it surprise us anymore
that all three- Prof. Manindra Agrawal, Prof. A.K Ghosh and Dr. Saderla are moving
heaven and earth for last fourteen months to divert the attention of the entire
nation, and now even the world, by spreading the news that the four faculty in
particular, and the faculty of IIT Kanpur in general are casteist.
Prof. A K. Ghosh and Prof. Manindra Agrawal have
played divisive politics twice. Firstly, they misrepresented the minimum
eligibility qualifications to all
reserved category candidates by advertising that First class and very good
academic record is an eligibility requirement to be a faculty at IIT Kanpur.
Due to this several Dalit candidates who had a CPI less than first class or an
academic record which is not ‘very good’ could not apply for the post of
Assistant Professor. They lost an opportunity of employment.
Secondly, between the candidates who applied, Prof.
Ghosh selected Dr. Saderla, who was Dr. AK Ghosh’s very own student,
despite the fact that the other SC/ST candidates had a higher CPI than Dr.
Saderla. This divisive politics will break the movement for empowering Dalits
by pitching one Dalit against another and also destroy the academic ethos of a
great institution. And, of course, it will destroy IIT Kanpur, as we are in the
process of witnessing.
Right to equality of opportunities in matters of
public employment (Article 16) is the fundamental right of all Indians. All eligible reserved category
candidates have the right to avail equal opportunity to apply to IIT Kanpur.
For this the entry level qualifications have to be the same as the ones that
are advertised. No other department in
IIT Kanpur even shortlisted, let alone recruit an applicant with a 7 CPI in the
Special Recruitment Drive. Either all departments, other than Aerospace
Engineering did not follow the advertised recruitment guidelines and are
therefore guilty of committing SC-ST discrimination. Or, Prof. A.K Ghosh
flouted the advertised guidelines to facilitate the entry of his own student, Dr.
Saderla, with the help and support of the Officiating Director, Prof. Manindra Agrawal.
The nexus between the three is apparent. Indeed, given that both Prof. Ghosh
and Prof. Agrawal have done their Ph. D. from IIT Kanpur, it would not have
been lost upon them that a CPI of 7.0 is the minimum passing mark, not first class.
IIT Kanpur, and in particular Prof. Manindra
Agrawal and Prof. A.K Ghosh owe an apology to the entire Dalit struggle of over
a hundred years to gain equal opportunity to all Indians. Instead of correcting
the centuries old social ill, they have wilfully subverted the reservation
policy and systematically sabotaged Special Recruitment Drive to serve their own
ends and people. Prof. Agrawal and Prof. Ghosh also owe an apology to their
alma mater, IIT Kanpur, for destroying its name and reputation for fairness and
high academics by their blatant nepotistic and casteist actions.
Sadly, the well-intentioned SC-ST
Act lent itself to easy abuse in many cases even while genuine victims of caste
oppression don’t often get justice thanks to poor implementation of laws meant
for their empowerment. It is tragic that even in an institution of national
eminence like the IITK a handful of influential & unscrupulous administrators
( all upper caste) are misusing the draconian SC/ST Act for their own selfish purposes
even at the cost of destroying the lives of eminent colleagues. The saddest part
of this saga is that they are doing so to cover their nepotism towards one SC
student even while brazenly harming the careers of several better qualified
SC/ST candidates.
First published in Swarajya, April 8, 2018
See Link: https://swarajyamag.com/politics/iit-kanpur-fairness-was-subverted-in-special-jobs-drive-for-scs
