The CBI action has come nearly 10 years after Ahmad had resigned from the position in 2007. He was the vice chancellor between 2002 and 2007.
The case pertains to the appointment of Shakaib Arsalan as Assistant Finance Officer in the AMU in 2005 in alleged violation of provisions of the AMU Act and rules, officials said here.
The CBI has registered a case of criminal conspiracy, cheating and provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act against Arsalan (now Joint Finance Officer), Beg now Finance Officer and Ahmad, they said.
Among the 22 candidates, nine were found to be eligible for the post of the AFO which did not include Arsalan, the preliminary enquiry of the CBI into the allegations has found.
More From This Section
Arsalan submitted a representation that his degree of Chartered Accountant is not being considered equivalent to a post-graduate degree in the shortlisting process whereas an AMU notification recognises these degrees as equivalent, it alleged.
He requested for his consideration for the interview held on February 3, 2005, it said.
It has surfaced during the CBI PE that Beg had put the note even though the file was not marked to her, the CBI alleged.
The note was forwarded through registrar and approved by Vice Chancellor Naseem Ahmad, it alleged.
The CBI PE also found that there was one more candidate with a CA degree with 60 per cent marks and several other candidates who had scored over 55 per cent marks in PG examination as per advertised eligibility conditions of the University, the FIR said.
Beg concealed that there was one more candidate with a CA degree and recommended Arsalan's candidature as part of the "criminal conspiracy", it alleged.
Based on the interview Arsalan's was one of the three candidates recommended for the position of AFO which was approved by the Vice Chancellor on behalf of the Executive Council.
The CBI found that the vice chancellor can use special powers on behalf of the Executive Council of the University but such decisions mandatorily should be reported to the Council which was not done in the meeting held on October 4, 2005, the FIR alleged.