The fact-finding committee constituted by Allahabad University authorities to look into allegations of foul play in DPhil admissions at the department of Ancient History in Combined Research Entrance Test (CRET), has pointed at discrepancy in selecting candidates as per the reservation norms.
In its report, submitted to the AU Vice-Chancellor Prof A K Singh, the panel has stated that there is a discrepancy in selecting OBC candidates in the DPhil admission in the department. Kiran Pal, who secured 32 out of maximum 50 marks has been declared selected whereas Savita Yadav, Rekha Kumari, Mayank Vishwarkarma and Vijay Kumar Jaiswar, who obtained 35, 33, 32.5 and 32 marks respectively have not been selected, the report points out.
The panel has recommended that this discrepancy should be rectified and the name of Savita Yadav instead of Kiran Pal should be included in the list of selected candidates. In the report, the panel maintains that “the DPC of ancient history department ought to have ascertained the vacancies existing in the department for admission to the DPhil programme and should have applied the reservation policy more carefully before declaring the result of the level 3 test, which would have saved them the embarrassment of revising the list of the successful candidates.”
The fact-finding committee’s report also acknowledges that the original list of successful candidates for admission to DPhil programme declared by the department contained 34 names and the revised list of successful candidates after the intervention of the dean, Faculty of Arts comprised of 28 names only.
The panel found that in the revised list, names of 7 candidates earlier declared successful, namely Jitendra, Rajesh Kumar Patel, Rekha Kumari, Chatrapati Narayan Shukla, Diwakar Misra, Jagdamba Prasad Tripathi and Jaish Ram, who secured 31, 37, 37, 35, 27, 33 and 29 marks repectively out of 50 were omitted and the name of Azad Singh who secured 36 marks was included.
However, the panel has found no substance in many of the other allegations of irregularities that student leaders had levelled against the department. In its report, the panel has maintained that “the committee prima-facie found little substance in the allegation of students that members of the DPC of the ancient history Department have willfully or deliberately awarded higher marks to certain category of candidates in order to ensure their success in the level 3 test. In fact, 18 out of 28 selected candidates and 24 out of 62 candidates who appeared before the DPC were awarded 60% or more marks in the synopsis submitted by them.” (TOI)