A conflict between academics at Calcutta University over whether or not they should publish marks details of the selected candidates has stalled the admission to the MPhil programme of the Clinical Psychology Centre, officials at the university said.
The secretary of the science faculty, Amit Roy, had asked the centre to upload the details — scores in the written test (out of 75 marks) and the interview (out of 25) — of the candidates selected for the MPhil programme to maintain transparency.
The centre has objected to this.
Those associated with the centre have said in a letter to the university’s registrar that such an exercise “must be a source of deep anguish and humiliation for candidates” who scored very low and even in negatives in the written test.
Amid this stalemate, the university has been forced to put the admission process on hold, officials said.
Secretary Roy and Somdeb Mitra, coordinator, MPhil in clinical psychology, Clinical Psychology Centre, refused to comment on the issue when contacted by The Telegraph.
CU’s interim vice-chancellor, Ashis Chatterjee, told this newspaper on Thursday: “I have told the department to publish the selection list with the scores.”
An admission test for enrolment in MPhil in clinical psychology was held on January 10.
The secretary insisted that the marks of all 217 candidates who had appeared in the written test be published immediately so the details could be uploaded on the website. The teachers at the centre reluctantly agreed to do so.
After the interview, the department selected 12 candidates for admission.
When Roy insisted that the marks in the written test and viva voce of the 12 candidates be uploaded, too, a fresh round of rift followed.
A letter signed by “core faculty members” and the coordinator — addressed to registrar Debasish Das — reads: “There was no such precedent earlier in which we had to submit the entire list of obtained marks by the candidate in the written examination during the viva voce/ interview.”
The teachers wrote: “We had completed the interview of the candidates who have qualified in the written examination and there was an external board member and other board members who compiled the results and compiled the list of the selected candidates…. Your early intervention is sought as the publication of written marks in which the candidates scored very low and even in negatives must be a source of deep anguish and humiliation for them.”
Referring to the deadlock over admission, Mitra in a separate letter to the registrar in early March had written: “We are not aware whether this publication of detailed marks is in accordance with policies framed by the university authorities. We are also not sure whether it would be proper to admit students without involving the secretary’s office.”
Secretary Roy in a letter to vice-chancellor Chatterjee said he wanted the list of selected candidates with scores, “considering the recent cases of corruption and court observations published in the media regarding different exam results and interviews in the different fields of education in the state”.
The letter reads: “The university should never compromise with transparency. I don’t know what the problems could be if the selection list is published with a score.”
