Law paper leak: Panel passes strictures against PU teachers
An inquiry committee formed to look into Panjab University’s law entrance exam leak in 2014 has passed strictures against varsity teachers for giving contradictory statements, not appearing before it and hiding facts. The report, dated July 3, will be tabled in a syndicate meeting on July 31.punjab Updated: Jul 28, 2016 13:26 IST
An inquiry committee formed to look into Panjab University’s law entrance exam leak in 2014 has passed strictures against varsity teachers for giving contradictory statements, not appearing before it and hiding facts. The report, dated July 3, will be tabled in a syndicate meeting on July 31.
The entrance test was held on June 9, 2014, and was re-held on July 21. On November 7, 2015, V-C professor AK Grover formed a committee under justice Dr Bharat Bhushan Parsoon as chairman. The report says that no effort was made to keep the identity of the coordinator of entrance exam, professor Vijay Nagpal, confidential.
Prof Nagpal, who is now the chairman of law department, told the committee that assistant professor Ajay Ranga, of the University Institute of Legal Studies, approached him with request for questions to be asked in the test for his real brother on June 8, a day before the entrance. Ranga has denied this.
The committee was surprised to learn that (assistant) prof Ranga was on duty in the examination hall on the day of the test as an observer, even though he knew, as admitted by him in his testimony, that his brother was appearing in the exam. This was a serious lapse on Ranga’s part,” the report reads.
Prof Nishtha Jaswal, the then chairperson, was asked to appear before the panel, but she declined. “... this smacks of arrogance,” said the report.
Dr Anupama Goel, who set the question paper used that was leaked, refused to appear before the panel despite strenuous efforts.
The committee said that Santosh Chopra, then assistant registrar in Dean University Instruction (DUI)’s office, said that it was prof Nagpal who delivered the sealed envelopes containing three sets of papers. Nagpal, maintained that he had sent the envelopes through a peon deputed by her. Before a previous committee, prof Nagpal had stated that he had sent the envelopes to DUI office through prof Devinder Singh. When confronted with discrepancy, he “gave the unsatisfactory explanation that the earlier statement ...might have pertained to another entrance rest,” the report notes.
On then DUI prof AK Bhandari, the committee said he wasn’t aware what was happening in the office.