Trouble brewing in EFLU again

"The CAG report says there is “no major irregularity” and what is being reported is a motivated campaign to tarnish the image of the university. I agree that there are small book keeping issues which have been raised and the university is addressing it and trying to get automation done to keep a regular check," said Sunaina.

Students of EFLU have been up in arms after the recent CAG report which mentioned that the VC was favouring a section of its faculty through irregular and un-ratified promotions and provident fund scheme, there by splurging crores.

The students are also miffed with the VC’s cost cutting methods on various student welfare schemes and have now stepped up the ante.

“We had written to the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) four months ago about the irregularities. Then we didn’t have concrete evidence. The CAG report confirms our claim. We are in talks with other student unions as well and are planning to meet the Governor on Saturday, to request him to sack the VC,” said Satish, a student leader at EFLU.

He also informed that they would be writing to the Ministry of Human Resources Development to sack the VC. “If the VC isn’t sacked, we will start an agitation,” said Satish.

An official with the MHRD said they were looking into the report and with the election code of conduct in place, they are planning to seek guidance from the Election Commission (EC) to proceed further.

Earlier, in a report submitted to the accountant general, a three-member audit team termed the move of converting Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) to General Provident Fund (GPF) for 11 faculty members and the promotion of 13 faculty members -- from associate professor rank to professors -- as ‘irregular’. By approving the provident fund scheme without sanction from the MHRD, the varsity splurged over Rs 1.39 crore on 11 faculty members and promoted 13 associate professors as professors. This allowed the members to hold key administrative posts on campus, under an un-ratified promotion scheme, sources alleged.

While 17 out of the 24 faculty members who enjoyed benefits of the two schemes retired, seven are still in service. Sources alleged that the university heads recently approved the two schemes only to satisfy some powerful lobbies on and off the campus.

On the conversion of the provident fund scheme, the audit report said, "The decision taken in the 14th executive committee meeting on this issue was implemented by the university without informing and taking formal approval of MHRD or the University Grants Commission (UGC)."

The report also mentioned that even as the university implemented the conversion under an interim order by the AP High Court, "treating the interim orders of the High Court as final judgment, cannot be valid ground for implementation of the scheme without the prior approval of the MHRD or the UGC." The report further said that the "irregular acceptance" of the conversion had “led to recurring financial liability in payment of retirement benefits to the 11 employees."

"Though the case of promotion of 13 readers (associate professors) as professors, the EC decided to implement the earlier decision of the CIEFL board...which was not approved/ratified by the UGC/MHRD," the report said.