Chennai: The Opposition DMK today questioned Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit’s action in ordering a probe into the matter of a woman lecturer who allegedly asked students to “adjust with some officials” in return for higher marks and money.
The incident involving the woman lecturer of a private college in Arupukottai and affiliated to the state-run Madurai Kamaraj University (MKU) is seen as a suggestion by her to girl students for sexual favour and has sparked an outrage.
Party working president M K Stalin said only the Vice-Chancellor of a university acts as the head and could address issues of staff and students of colleges affiliated to it and not the Governor, who is also its Chancellor.
“Therefore, he (V-C) alone should have taken action on the issue. But, one cannot understand how the Chancellor of the varsity could initiate action in this regard,” Stalin told reporters here.
There seemed to be “some confusion” in the matter, he said and added he had yesterday sought court-monitored CBI probe into the matter.
Purohit, in his capacity as Chancellor of MKU, yesterday announced setting up of a ‘high-powered enquiry’ under retired IAS official R Santhanam as the issue rocked the state.
The Governor had said Santhanam would look into “certain immoral” happenings surrounding the lecturer of the Devanga Arts College in Arupukottai in Virudhunagar district.
His action came on a day when the lecturer was arrested after college authorities and a women’s forum lodged police complaint in the backdrop of an audio clip containing purported conversation of her with some students going viral on the social media in the last few days.
In the audio, she is heard suggesting that the girls adjust with some (education) officials, “for getting 85 per cent mark and money.”
The lecturer was alleged to have approached the students a month ago. But the incident came to light on Sunday following the audio clip going viral.
The DMK has been objecting to Purohit holding review meetings with officials in districts in recent months, holding that it amounted to interference in state’s autonomy, a charge denied by the Raj Bhavan.