For any student, there are certain criteria on the basis of which they rate the college/ University they are aspiring for. Placements and the pay package being one of the important deciding factors, it is necessary that the Institution must disclose the facts and figures for every graduating batch. Flashback to 2012 helps us to find out how ILNU had disclosed its highest package of the student who got placement though PPO and the average package of the batch.
Continuing controversy and Bad interpretations
ILNU’s continuing controversy regarding the allegations of fake placements has come up with a twist after Legal Desire probe into the matter and requested for the university’s stand from their Director, Purvi Pokhariyal. The whole issue began when a few students allegedly stated that the college is misrepresenting facts and figures regarding the placements for the 2017 batch graduates.
Where did the controversy start from?
On May 12 Ahmedabad Mirrors reported that “A note issued by ILNU stated that of the 231students in the batch, 103 students participated in the placement season this year. The highest package offered was around Rs 16 lakh per annum and the average package comes to around Rs5.25 lakh, offered by top domestic law firms and corporates among others. Overall, all recruiters who visited the campus were extremely happy with the quality and skills, the students of ILNU brought to the table.”
Alind Chopra’s Pre Placement offer
Where Alind Chopra’s clearly adds to what the University states that “the Package that was offered” which shall be construed to mean that the pay that was offered through a PPO which had no role of the University to play except for the academic and overall professional support and guidance that the college had provided in regard to the fee for placement process. This has to be understood that University calculates the package through the estimate that the Employer firm has roughly estimated with the student. Also, the subsequent average is calculated on an estimate pay package that is likely to be offered. This further should be immaterial whether that package was a result of PPO or a college enforced placement process.
Other concerns regarding placement in question
Students and alumni have questioned the institute’s timing of spreading such information as law schools will soon start admissions. They raised concerns that the institute is fudging placement details at a time when students aspiring to take law as a career will appear for competitive exams and select the schools.
Students also stated that the institute’s Campus Recruitment Committee (CRC) showed lackadaisical attitude and the institute’s soft skills training exercise was only a CV-building exercise. “Such an exercise should have taken place in the 2nd or 3rd year rather in the 5th year, so that we folks could have got some good internships. The personal interview session was more of a mockery, as they were really short on time. Interviews lasted three minutes at the most,” alleged a student.
The whole controversy was denied by the Placement Coordinator Shailja Tripathi who stated that “Nowhere in the press note have we mentioned that the student got the job through campus placement.” However, the College people still remain silent on the point of placement trainings and other concerns, we hope that they will revert back with authentic facts denoting presence of the facilities and training as promised and charged for.
Was 2012 Placement news falsely reported?
Subsequently, the genuineness of the 2012 Ahmedabad Mirror’s authenticity was also in question. The news stated that the students of first batch of B.A LL.B (Hons.) of ILNU secured pre-placement offers ranging from 4 Lakhs to 34 Lakhs. This had and has been attracting students country wide. Academic co-ordinator Rhishikesh Dave’s statement is important to be quoted here, “The Corporate Law student received an offer from Pennigton Solicitors, a UK-based law firm. The offer is subject to the condition that she would get admission to Cambridge. This is not a tough task for her as the student has already cleared three rounds of admission process.” It is thus obvious that the university has always been clear regarding the placement offers and the conditions subsequent. Thus, the real root cause lied in the interpretation of the note that the University had issued.
What does Director Purvi has to say?
When asked about their stand on the whole controversy Director Prof. Purvi Pokhariyal reverted to Legal Desire that:
“Institute had shared the interim report of graduating students and their placement wherein it was mentioned that one of our students got offer through PPO of approximately around 16 lakh, which was shared by the student himself to the institute. This PPO he has earned through rigorous internship at the firm that we all know. The report of the institute had nowhere mentioned that he has got this offer through CRC (Campus Recruitment Committee consists of students and faculty in charge) by bringing the law firm at campus. it was never intended to misguide or misrepresent the fact the only intention was to feel proud of our student and share that pride.
The second link referring warning to students is again misconstrued. it was an appeal to students which was mentioned in subject matter of an email too. An appeal in a very gentle tone to the students to refrain from engaging in any activity consciously or unconsciously damages future prospects of existing students and the reputation of the institution which it has earned in short time with sheer hard work of many people.”
The statement leading to a clear case of misinterpretation
The Director has emphasized on the official report that the University issues. Thus, where the report consists of the clear cut statement that the highest packaged offered had to be construed in the literal sense meaning that it had no intentions to misrepresent student’s efforts to be that of the College’ placement cell. Where the reports by various legal sites did not dig into the official records, we humbly urge everybody to first mine into the official data and authentic statements so as to subsequently misconstrue them.
Fair competition or Students’ concern
Henry Ford rightly said that “Competition is the keen cutting edge of business, always shaving away at costs.” We all agree that certain level of competition amongst the institutions help the society bilaterally. The students’ claim of why at this time can be clearly answered. But where the CLAT aspirants’ concern regarding admissions is raised, it is important to clear this whole confusion. There is always room for journalism to ensure proportionality between the concerns of competition that must be fair at the same time addressing the students’ right of fair and true disclosure.
Reported by Samanvi Narang, Executive Assistant at Legal Desire