It seems something is rotten in Valley’s premier agriculture institute, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology Kashmir (SKUAST-K). Lately two instances of nepotism surfaced in the campus, making many believe that the institute is now attaining prominence for not-so-good reasons.
The candidates who had applied for the post of Urdu typist in SKUAST-K have alleged “nepotism” in the selection procedure adopted by the university.
Flaying the selection process, the aggrieved candidates said the university had advertised one post of Urdu typist, the qualification for which was a six months certificate course in computer application. They said that after repeated requests, the university finally put out the list of four shortlisted candidates.
The aggrieved candidates alleged that those having higher qualification didn’t make to shortlist. Those selected are simple graduates, claim the dropout candidates—most of whom are post-graduates. “It is a clear case of nepotism,” said Arshid Ahmad, a candidate from restive Nowhatta. “I mean, if it is not the case of nepotism, then why would they snub post-graduates (Urdu) with highest computer proficiency and training and merely select graduates with little computer acumen?”
This sense of “nepotism” meted out to many dropout candidates run high with the disgruntled lot alleging that the university has simply killed the merit by brushing them aside.
Arshid who filed an application last week seeking valid reasons for being dropped and relief of his grievances claims to have received no response so far from the university.
In another “abstruse” selection process, eight years ago, in April 2008, SKUAST-K asked for applications from eligible candidates for 25 posts of Accounts Assistant through an advertisement Notification vide Advertisement Notice No. 5 28/04/2008 No. AU/Adm/R&C 2008/1132-1212 dated 28/04/2008.
Hundreds of aspirants applied against the vacant posts at that time along with the demand draft of Rs 250 per candidate. However, the list was never put out. The posts remained vacant.
Instead, five years later, in December 2013, the university administration came up with a separate Advertisement Notification AU/Adm/R&C2013/23094-23153 dated 17/12/2013 asking again for the new applications from the candidates for the same posts (Accounts Assistants).
The candidature of candidates who had applied in 2008 was given no regards in this notification.
Nine months before this notification, the administration floated another notification in March 2013 for withdrawal of 2008 recruitment job notification despite the fact that there was no mention of withdrawal of notification in the previous 2008 recruitment job notification.
That advertisement only said that the fulfilment of the posts can be deferred.
“Since there was no mention of withdrawal of notification at any instance, therefore the 2013 notifications stand invalid,” said one aggrieved candidate.
The aggrieved candidates allege that the administration delayed the 2008 list and subsequently withdrew the advertisement notification as they were waiting for “blue eyed” candidates to mature and become eligible for the said posts.
To get their grievances addressed, the aggrieved candidates moved to the High Court and challenged the March and Dec 2013 notifications on the basis that re-advertisement for the same post is against the recruitment policy.