KTU Ombudsman Faces Backlash Over Controversial Attendance Decision
Thiruvananthapuram: A major controversy has erupted at the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU). The university's ombudsman, Dharmaraj Adat, finds himself under intense scrutiny. His recent order has sparked widespread debate and criticism across academic circles.
Order to Release Withheld Results
Dharmaraj Adat, who previously served as the vice-chancellor of Sanskrit University, issued a directive to KTU. He instructed the university authorities to announce the withheld examination results of several MTech students. These students were attached to Thalassery CAPE Engineering College.
The university had originally withheld their results. This action was taken due to a clear shortage in mandatory attendance requirements. The students failed to secure the minimum attendance needed to clear their courses.
Reasons Behind Student Absences
Investigations reveal specific reasons for the attendance violations. Two of the MTech students were regularly absent from college classes. They had secured employment with IT companies in Bangalore. Another student did not attend classes at all but still appeared for the final examination.
This situation directly contradicts established university regulations. According to KTU rules, regular MTech students are strictly prohibited from taking up permanent employment during their course period. Students must also file a formal affidavit confirming their compliance with this rule to the concerned authorities.
Teacher Transfer Adds Fuel to Fire
The controversy deepened significantly following another development. The Cooperative Academy of Professional Education (CAPE) management transferred a teacher. This faculty member had refused to grant the mandatory 75% attendance required for the students to clear their MTech course.
The teacher was moved to Thrikkarippur engineering college. This transfer occurred after the teacher highlighted the attendance issue involving the students. Many see this transfer as a punitive action against the teacher for upholding university rules.
Save University Campaign Committee Reacts
The Save University Campaign Committee (SUCC) has strongly condemned the ombudsman's decision. In an official statement, SUCC declared that Adat passed his order without properly examining all relevant facts and documents.
"The teacher who flagged the attendance issue received a summons to appear at KTU headquarters," SUCC stated. "The hearing notice came with very short notice. The teaching faculty requested more time to prepare and depose before the ombudsman. However, Adat rejected this reasonable request outright."
SUCC further revealed details about the order itself. "The ombudsman issued a mere two-sentence order. He directed the concerned authorities to announce the students' results immediately," the committee added.
Appeal to Governor and Political Allegations
SUCC has taken the matter to higher authorities. The committee formally approached the Governor of Kerala. They seek his direct intervention to cancel the ombudsman's order, which they argue violates university rules.
The committee also urged the Governor to remove Dharmaraj Adat from his position as ombudsman. In a memorandum submitted to the Governor, SUCC pointed to Adat's other role. "Dharmaraj Adat currently serves as the state library council chairman," SUCC noted. "This appointment is made on a political basis. Therefore, he should be relieved from the ombudsman post immediately."
SUCC has made serious allegations about the decision-making process. The committee claims the ombudsman's controversial order resulted from political pressure. They argue this undermines the autonomy and integrity of the university system.
Broader Implications for University Rules
If the ombudsman's order stands, it could set a dangerous precedent. The decision would effectively veto a fundamental university regulation. KTU rules clearly stipulate that regular students must maintain 75% attendance to be eligible for examinations and results.
This case raises critical questions about rule enforcement in higher education. It highlights tensions between administrative decisions and academic regulations. The controversy continues to unfold as various stakeholders await further developments.
