synopsis
A controversy has erupted at Madayi College in Kannur over allegations that MP MK Raghavan accepted bribes for appointments, which he strongly denies, citing adherence to Supreme Court guidelines.
Kannur: A significant controversy has erupted surrounding the recruitment process at Madayi College after a candidate alleged that MP MK Raghavan accepted bribes for appointments amidst the ongoing hiring process. TV Nidhish, who appeared for an interview at the college, has alleged that appointments were made following the acceptance of money. Nidhish claimed that two individuals were promised jobs, and these same individuals were appointed just yesterday. He filed a formal complaint on the same day as the interview, accusing MK Raghavan’s assertion of transparent recruitment of being false.
Nidhish has demanded that the bank accounts and loan details of the appointed individuals be investigated to expose the alleged financial irregularities. Furthermore, he alleged that over Rs 10 lakh was accepted as bribes for these appointments.
In response to the allegations, MK Raghavan has strongly denied any involvement in bribery or wrongdoing. He has labeled the claims as baseless and reiterated that the recruitment process at Madayi College adhered strictly to Supreme Court guidelines without political favouritism. Raghavan emphasized that political interference could not have influenced the recruitment process, adding that he was not a member of the interview board. He also revealed that the party had taken action against five individuals who had obstructed his efforts, as he disclosed during a press conference in Delhi.
Raghavan shared his personal connection to Madayi College, recalling that he began efforts to establish the institution at the age of 29 and reluctantly assumed the role of chairman seven months ago after being persuaded. He explained that four non-teaching positions had been appointed in line with government and Supreme Court guidelines, with 83 applicants vying for roles like Office Assistant, Office Attender, and Computer Assistant. Of these positions, the role of Office Attender was reserved for differently-abled individuals and filled by a deaf person, as there were no blind applicants.
Raghavan has also alleged that there is a deliberate attempt to defame him and destabilize the institution, suggesting that Congress may have instigated public outrage against him. During his statements, he expressed visible emotion, emphasizing his commitment to fairness and transparency and said burning his effigy is equal to setting him ablaze. He further clarified that he has never accepted a bribe in his life and that the suspension of the director board members had occurred without his knowledge. He pointed out that the DCC president was unaware of the appointment procedures and pledged to release more information at the appropriate time.
Although Raghavan acknowledged that one of the appointees may be a relative, he was quick to assert that the appointment was not based on nepotism. He also stated that the director board members were suspended without consulting him.