Suspended Anna University faculty seeks advance bail

Examinations were conducted in a fair and transparent manner, says petitioner

A view of the Anna University building situated in Chennai, the capital of the southern Indian State of Tamil Nadu. Anna University was established on September 4, 1978 as a unitary type of university. It offers higher education in engineering, technology and allied sciences relevant to the current and projected needs of the society. Situated in the southern part of the city of Chennai, the university's main campus extends over 100 hectares abutting the Adyar River on the north and Raj Bhavan on the south. The Madras Institute of Technology at Chrompet constitutes the second campus of the university which extends over 20 hectares. A third campus extending over 80 hectares is located at Taramani.

Suspended Anna University faculty G.V. Uma, 47, has filed an anticipatory bail petition in the Madras High Court in a case booked against her by Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) on the charge of having taken huge amount of money as bribe from students to boost their scores during revaluation of answer scripts. The offence had allegedly been committed when she served as the Controller of Examinations last year.

The anticipatory bail plea has been listed for hearing before Justice M. Dhandapani on Thursday. In her affidavit, the petitioner said, she held the post of Controller of Examinations between March 3, 2015 and March 2, 2018.

Petitioner’s claim

During the period, she conducted the examinations for the students of the university as well as those of affiliated colleges in a fair and transparent manner without giving room for remarks from any quarters.

In 2017, it was decided to conduct central evaluation of answer scripts at Tindivanam to make it fool proof. The evaluation process was supervised by Additional Controller of Examinations, Deputy Controller of Examinations, 23 zonal coordinators and many zonal officers apart from herself. The evaluation and revaluation were done as per well laid down norms of the university and the petitioner could not bend those rules in any way.

“The petitioner can neither influence the examiners nor the officers to award favourable marks to any student. Further the respondent (DVAC) has not conducted proper enquiry and had opted to pick and choose method of arraying the petitioners in the crime. The petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence or much less offence as detailed by the defacto complainant,” her affidavit read.