The controversy revolves around the appointment of Vaid V V Tayade as examiner and paper setter for the Kaya Chikitsa paper of the MD examination of October 1998 at the behest of Dean Vd Dinanath Upadhyaya. The vacancy arose when Vd D D Goradia declined the post since relatives of his were taking the same examination. Thus Vd Tayade was appointed.

However, according to acting Vice Chancellor Dr Naresh Chandra, following a complaint by Vd M M Makwana the examination department of the university stripped Vd Tayade off his new post. Vd Makwana had pointed out that Vd Tayade was not even on the panel from which the selection should have been made. Also, according to sources, Vd Tayade had two relatives (Kadambari V Tayade and Suchita N Tayade) taking theexamination.

In his written complaint (dated November 4) to the Controller of Examination, Vd Makwana said Vd Tayade's appointment violated the rules despite the latter's undertaking that none of his relatives were taking the examination. Vd Tayade was subsequently replaced by Vd Makwana on November 7 and the dean was asked to explain his selection.

Sources reveal that the dean, in his letter, claimed he was not aware that Vd Tayade was not on the panel from which the selection was made. Neither did the university's Examination Department intimate him, he claimed. Since there was no other candidate and the situation was dire, he recommended Vd Tayade, the dean explained.

Sources, though, point out that the Examination Department had indeed intimated the dean that his candidate was not on the panel, and therefore was ineligible for the post.

Despite repeated efforts, Vd Upadhyaya could not be contacted for his comment on the issue.

University Senate member Amarjit Singh Manhas, who among others hadcomplained in writing to the Chancellor, pointed out that the authorities also sidestepped protocol by asking the dean to explain his controversial choice. ``Instead of merely questioning him, the matter should have been placed before the university's Unfair Means Committee Board as per Section 32(6),'' he pointed out.

Moreover, Manhas said, Vd Tayade was not eligible for examinership on yet another ground. ``Since he is a post graduate teacher with the university for less than five years, his candidature violated Section 32 (5) of the Mumbai University Act, 1994,'' he said.

Earlier, an enquiry committee appointed by the university's Executive Council had found Vd Upadhyaya guilty of irregularity as an examiner during the conduct of practical examination for second year Bachelor in Ayurvedic Medicine and Sanchita at Padarath Vigyan held in March 1985.

In a letter to the acting VC, the National Students Union of India (Mumbai) demanded that Vd Upadhyaya should be restrained from functioning as Dean tillthe matter is investigated and action taken.

While Dr Chandra refused to answer any question on the university taking action against Vd Upadhyaya, he said, ``Dean Vd Upadhyaya will be again asked to explain his recommendation of Vd Tayade. His comments will then be referred to the Board of Examination (BoE).'' That the matter has not been placed before the Unfair Means Committee but the BoE, of which Vd Upadhyaya himself is a member, speaks volumes of the university's ways of dealing with alleged serious irregularities in appointment of senior officials.