Greater Noida: Serious questions have emerged over transparency and academic integrity at Gautam Buddha University, where a major recruitment scam has come to light. Allegations suggest that several candidates were made permanent faculty members after allegedly paying ₹30–35 lakh each, despite not meeting the required academic qualifications or experience. The revelations have not only shaken the credibility of the institution but also raised broader concerns about fairness in higher education recruitment.
According to sources, large-scale appointments were carried out between 2010 and 2011. While concerns were raised at the time, the matter remained buried for years due to the influence of powerful individuals. It was only after formal complaints that an internal committee was constituted to examine the recruitment process, leading to startling findings.
FCRF Returns With CDPO, Its Premier Data Protection Certification for Privacy Professionals
Over 70 faculty appointments flagged
The inquiry report revealed that more than 70 professors were placed in the so-called “X category”—a classification used for candidates who failed to meet essential eligibility criteria such as academic qualifications, research output, and teaching experience. The committee had clearly recommended that such candidates should not be regularised under any circumstances. However, these recommendations were allegedly ignored, and many were granted permanent positions.
One of the most serious irregularities highlighted was the mismatch between advertised posts and final appointments. Several candidates were reportedly called for interviews for lower positions, such as assistant professor or research assistant, but were eventually appointed directly to higher posts. In multiple cases, there was no formal advertisement issued for the positions at all, raising serious concerns about the transparency of the selection process.
₹30–35 lakh payoff allegations turn into a campus scandal
Sources further claim that the recruitment process involved significant financial transactions. It is alleged that candidates paid between ₹30 lakh and ₹35 lakh each to secure permanent appointments. Additionally, recruitment norms were reportedly altered frequently to favour selected individuals, effectively manipulating the system to suit specific outcomes.
The committee categorised the appointments into three groups—Z, Y, and X. The Z category included candidates whose appointments were fully compliant with rules and regulations. The Y category comprised cases with minor deficiencies that could be rectified. However, the X category was found to be the most problematic, involving candidates who did not meet even the basic eligibility criteria yet were still selected and later regularised.
Candidates interviewed for junior roles were reportedly handed higher posts
The report also noted that several candidates lacked the minimum required experience and did not have adequate research publications at the time of their interviews. Despite these shortcomings, they were selected and appointed. A subsequent committee formed in 2018 reportedly reaffirmed that many of these appointments were not valid, yet no decisive action followed.
Allegations have also surfaced that close links between senior university officials and individuals involved in the recruitment process played a key role in delaying or preventing action. This nexus is believed to have allowed the irregularities to remain concealed for years.
RUSA fund audit adds a fresh layer of pressure
Meanwhile, scrutiny has also extended to financial matters within the university. Expenditure under the Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) is now under investigation. Around ₹10 crore spent on development works is being audited, with verification of official records currently underway. The university had been sanctioned ₹20 crore under the scheme, but has received only half so far. Approval for the remaining funds is expected to depend on the outcome of the ongoing verification process.
The twin issues of recruitment irregularities and financial scrutiny have dealt a significant blow to the university’s reputation. What began as an internal review has now evolved into a greater demand for accountability and systemic reform.
As the investigation progresses, attention will remain focused on whether those responsible will be held accountable and whether long-pending concerns will finally lead to concrete action. For now, the case has reignited a wider debate on transparency, meritocracy, and governance in India’s higher education institutions.
