CAG says irregularities in coaching scheme for SC/BC students
Government auditor CAG has alleged irregularities in implementation of scheme for providing coaching to SC/BC candidates and pulled up Haryana`s Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Department (WSCBC)in this regard.
Chandigarh: Government auditor CAG has alleged irregularities in implementation of scheme for providing coaching to SC/BC candidates and pulled up Haryana`s Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Department (WSCBC)in this regard.
In its latest report tabled in Haryana Assembly this week, the CAG said the department spent Rs 5.22 crore on providing coaching to 9,906 Scheduled Castes/Backward Classes candidates for appearing in higher competitive/entrance examinations through 14 coaching institutes "which were selected arbitrarily".
"The payment was made without verifying the eligibility and ensuring that the coaching was actually imparted or not," the report said.
The State Government had in April 2009 introduced a financial assistance scheme for SC and BC candidates appearing for higher competitive and entrance examinations through the WSCBC Department.
"During 2010-11 to 2012-13, the Department paid Rs 5.22 crore to 14 coaching institutes for imparting coaching to 9,906 candidates appearing in ten competitive examinations," it further said.
The report said that the Department had in December 2010 invited proposals and 16 coaching institutes had come forward.
"All the 16 coaching institutes were selected for providing coaching without following the prescribed system and without taking into account their eligibility. Of these, four institutes did not fulfil the criteria of experience of 10 years in coaching...Documents of two institutes were not on record. Out of the 16, 14 institutes imparted coaching during 2010-13.
"Thus, the selection of coaching institutes which had not fulfilled the basic conditions was irregular and indicated that undue favour was extended to such institutes. It was also observed that two institutes were owned by the same person and were having common address...It was not possible for two institutes to impart coaching in the same premises at same time," the report further said.