LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Raj D   13 January 2022

Regarding recruitment fraud in government institution and failure to address the matter

The Director of an academic institution under central government (India) has selected an ineligible candidate who did not meet prescribed MHRD norms. The complaint was submitted to him, institutional grievance committee, and the Chairman of the Board of Governor (also secretary in the concerned ministry) but no action was taken for over 5 months. The matter was escalated to CVC and PMO, who in turn directed CVO of the ministry to investigate the matter. Six months gone, to reminders filed with CVC and PMO, no investigation has happened. The victim who is also the complainant has not been reached out by anyone either from the institute, or ministry or from the CVC/PMO office.

One outcome is that the ministry has accepted the resignation of the selected candidate.

The bigger question is the fraud committed by the director and his team by violating norms, selecting a person who did not meet eligibility, and then failing to take any action and appoint waitlisted candidate.

 

While the matter related to appointment is now being planned to be taken to CAT, equally important is to approach court to prosecute the director and his cronies who committed the fraud and then failed to take any prompt remedial action once they were informed about it.

 

The victim wants to reach out to the court, and needs from the experts on this forum following information:

1. prima facie, do you feel that this matter should be taken to the court, pleading the court to prosecute director and his team involved in selection process for misusing his office and power, neglect of dutry, and committing fraud.

2. What are the most relevant sections under which the case should be brought?

3. Would it be ok to reach out to local district/sessions court, or this should be raised directly in high court?

4. CVC and CVO (concerned ministry) are supposed to complete investigation within certain time frame. In this case CVO was to complete investigation within a month (as per the letter we received), while CVC complaint registration portal indicated 3 months for completion. DOPT norms says that any investigation pertaining to single ministry should be closed within 6 weeks.

 

All the above timelines have lapsed. Should CVC and CVO be made a part of the defendant in this case for failing to fulfill their constitutional responsibility? Would asking for a compensation from them for mental harassment of the candidate and loss of opportunity would be appropriate?



Learning

 1 Replies

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate)     22 January 2022

meet a lawyer with full facts and consider filing writ mandamus


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query