Madura

Notice to CBI in case against Waqf Board College

more-in

Petitioner alleges multi-crore recruitment scam

MADURAI

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday directed notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on a plea that sought a direction to the investigative agency to probe the alleged multi-crore recruitment scam involving M.S.S Waqf Board College here.

Justice P. Velmurugan directed notice and sought a counter from the CBI in the case by January 20. The court was hearing a writ petition filed by B. Sardar Basha of Madurai who alleged large-scale irregularities in the recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff in the college.

In his petition, Mr. Basha, a member of the general body of the college, said the college was an aided institution. During his tenure as secretary and correspondent of the college in 2002, Jamal Mohideen indulged in misappropriation of funds. He was also involved in mismanaging the college property and abetting sexual harassment of women teaching staff, he said.

Subsequently, the then Chairperson of Tamil Nadu Waqf Board Bader Sayeed removed Jamal Mohideen from the general body. The petition by Jamal Mohideen challenging his removal was also dismissed by the court. Despite the charges against him, A. Anwar Raja, the current Chairperson of Waqf Board, nominated him to the college board in 2017, he said.

This move was aimed at looting the college resources, the petitioner alleged. Jamal Mohideen was officiating as the Secretary of the college until the reconstitution of the Board, and during that period he recruited teaching and non-teaching staff in the college. Illegal gratification was received for making appointments and it was shared among Jamal Mohideen, Anwar Raja and Labour and Employment Minister Nilofer Kafeel. However, a petition filed before the High Court Bench quashed the nomination of Jamal Mohideen to the board, he said.

Though a complaint was preferred with the CBI and the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in this regard, they were yet to respond to the complaint, the petitioner said.

Next Story