CAG Raps NIT Rourkela For Gross Irregularities In Faculty Recruitment

Rourkela: The National Institute of Technology (NIT) Rourkela, a premier technical institute in the country, has been rapped by the Comptroller-cum-Auditor General (CAG) for gross irregularities in recruitment and promotions in various departments including financial burden running over a crore.

The serious indictment by the CAG has raised suspicion of nepotism and favouritism in the recruitment drive. The constitution of the selection panel, in one case, was termed as “invalid”.

Sources said the institute is yet to respond on the action taken following the CAG exposure, despite reminders from the Ministry of Human Resource and Development.

The audit report had covered the period from August 2017 to March 2018, examining, among others, the contractual appointment to 203 faculty posts in AGP (academic grade pay) of Rs 6,000 to Rs 10,500 amounting to gross pay of Rs 65,000 to Rs 1.70 lakh as per Seventh Pay Commission in September 2017. The advertisement was published in 2017.

The selection process itself appeared unusual at best, in that the candidates appearing for a higher grade pay were rejected. However, they were considered for a lower grade pay and given additional increments (an award over and above AGP). CAG said the grant of additional increments to a person rejected as unqualified for a higher grade pay at the end of recruitment is “irregular/illogical” after selecting him in a lower annual pay grade.

Three incumbent Assistant Professors (Asst Prof) got disqualified for the posts of Associate Professors (Asso Prof) in AGP of Rs 9,500, but on getting selected as Assistant Professors in AGP of Rs 8,000, they were given seven increments.

It further noted that an Assistant Professor failed to qualify for the post in AGP of Rs 8,000 but on selection in AGP of Rs 7,000, he also got seven increments.

“Even if the unbridled prerogative power of the selection committee is accepted, grant of increments without placing the reason for the same on record indicates lack of transparency and appears arbitrary,” the CAG said. Out of the seven increments, two additional increments had been given on academic achievements but the detailed justification for giving the remaining five additional increments “was not on record”, it added.

Besides, changes in grade pay and additional increments of 51 candidates in violation of guidelines put a financial burden of Rs 1.14 crore on the institute.

“On test check of records on faculty appointment, it was observed that 59 candidates who were already in the service applied and got selected for the post (mentioned separately) and were granted additional increments in addition to the change of annual grade pay. Due to the grant of additional increments, there was involvement of Rs 1,14,98,894 extra burden towards the pay of 51 internal faculties during the period February 2018 to December 2018.”

Some other observations of CAG:

Improper recommendation of the selection committee resulted in irregular appointments:

A candidate should have a PhD with six years experience as a pre-requisite for recruitment to the post of Associate Professor with  AGP of Rs 9500. Date of possession PhD means the date of award and not the date of defence.

On being checked, it was noticed that in one case, the defence date of PhD had been considered as award date instead of the actual date. Besides, the candidate did not possess six years of experience even after taking into account the defence date.

In the advertisement for the post of Associate Professor, there were anomalies in the cases of four applications, who offered their candidature:

The selection committee had attached a condition that the candidates should be supervised by one student to whom a PhD was awarded. The same condition was not applicable to other candidates though they had applied under the same advertisement for the same post. Due to this, two other candidates were not considered for promotion.

Selection of candidates without adhering to MHRD guidelines in faculty recruitment:

According to MHRD guidelines, all new entrants should have PhD in relevant disciplines and first class in the preceding degrees. However, in the advertisement for the recruitment of the faculty, in the eligibility conditions, having first class in the preceding degrees was not mentioned specifically.

During scrutiny of the applications, it was observed that seven internal candidates were called for an interview and eventually selected by the selection committee without having the required first-class in the preceding degree.

Improper constitution of the selection panel:

In the recruitment process, there is a provision that the experts of the selection committee should be from the empanelled list and the same will be strictly adhered to by NITR. However, it was noticed in the audit that one expert was not from the empanelled list while conducting the interview for the Department of Physics, thus rendering the panel invalid.

The justification given was that due to last moment rejection of the esteemed expert member of the selection committee, an outside member was called. The reply is not tenable as the outside expert was not critically examined both by the Board of Governors and the ministry, which is a requirement to remove any member with questionable integrity. Therefore the yardstick set by the ministry was defeated.