How Anna University gave Rs 62-crore contract to 15-day-old startup

CHENNAI: An Anna University committee that met in January to discuss what it called ‘confidential printing’ accounts found Rs 84.71 crore was spent between October 2016 and December 2017.

Digging deeper, the panel found the university had given a Rs 62.34-crore contract in October 2016 for printing marksheets with ‘added security features’ to a Chennai-based startup without calling for open tenders. The company, incidentally called Incognito Forensic Foundation, was found to have been incorporated only 15 days before the controller of examinations called for quotations.

The directorate of vigilance and anti-corruption (DVAC), which is probing the cash-for-marks scam, suspects that the company might not have applied for the contract by the due date. DVAC is inquiring on a complaint filed by then chairman of the university’s convenor committee and higher education secretary Sunil Paliwal on February 28. A case would be filed soon, said sources.

On August 19, 2016, then controller of examinations (CoE) G V Uma sent letters to nine firms asking them to give quotations for supplying marksheets and various certificates. These were to reach her office on or before September 12, 2016.

“No particular time on the last day was indicated. The required security features (on the certificates) were not indicated in the letter. Hence the firms offered their rates based on different security features. Some did not indicate any feature,” the complaint said. Quotations from four firms had proper dates, but IFF’s quotation did not bear any date. This raises suspicion that the rates quoted by others were informed to the winner and they quoted accordingly, Paliwal’s complaint said.

When questioned by the convenor committee, Uma sent a note on September 15, 2016, giving a list of three firms which had responded. However, IFF was not part of this list. Anna University had not even sent a letter to one of these three firms, the complaint said. “IFF’s name was separately mentioned in the note. It was scribbled with a pen,” a source said.

Then convenor of the committee and higher education secretary A Karthik raised a query on September 20 as to how IFF was selected. Two days later, Uma said letters were sent to nine companies, but only five responded. But, the name of one of the three firms that she listed in her initial note a week ago did not make it to this list of five, the complaint said.

However, IFF made it to this list. Uma told the committee that of the five that sent the quotations, two refused to share the source code of QR application. “But the letters from these two companies did not indicate any such condition,” the complaint said.

When the files were checked, it was found that a comparative statement of rates of these five firms had been prepared only on October 6, 2016. Officials said she should have given the comparative rates in her earlier notes to the committee, dated September 15 and 22. October 6, incidentally, was the date on which the orders were given to the selected firm.

The orders were placed for 20 lakh certificates which includes grade sheets, provisional certificates and degree certificates, while the university needed only 2 lakh per year. “The then convenor did not stop the process and the payment was made,” said a senior university official. Neither Karthik nor Uma could be reached; they did not respond to text messages from TOI.

IFF director K Ganesan told TOI that they had sent the quotation in time. He said he would share more details, but declined to take further calls.