Questions Cloud WAPCOS Director’s Appointment, Employees Seek Probe into Alleged Backdoor Entry and Influence

New Delhi:Serious questions have been raised over the appointment and rise of a senior director in WAPCOS Limited, a Central Public Sector Enterprise (CPSE) under the Ministry of Jal Shakti, with allegations ranging from backdoor recruitment and violation of service rules to political pressure and possible financial inducements. The controversy has brought the spotlight on Amitabh Tripathi, Director (Corporate & HRD), whose entry into the organisation and subsequent elevation are now under scrutiny.

According to employees and sources familiar with internal records, Tripathi’s initial induction into WAPCOS allegedly took place without a written examination or formal interview. Such a process, if true, would be in sharp contrast to the established recruitment norms followed by CPSEs, where transparency and competitive selection are considered non-negotiable.

Sources claim that the appointment was pushed through under pressure from the then Chairman and Managing Director (CMD), despite objections over Tripathi’s qualifications. It is alleged that at the time of his appointment, he possessed only a diploma or qualifications that were later found to be questionable, raising doubts about his eligibility under existing recruitment rules. No official clarification has so far been issued by WAPCOS on these claims.

The controversy deepens with his elevation to the post of Director (Corporate & HRD), a sensitive position that oversees recruitment, human resources, vigilance coordination and disciplinary proceedings. Multiple insiders point out that Tripathi was the junior-most among the internal candidates, making his selection over more experienced officers difficult to justify on merit alone.

Even more disturbing is the allegation that a payment of ₹10 crore was made to the then CMD, Rajnikant Agarwal, to secure Tripathi’s recommendation before the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB). Though no independent investigation has yet examined this charge, its seriousness has left employees questioning how such claims could remain unaddressed for so long.

The matter also carries a political undertone. Sources allege that during Tripathi’s initial appointment, political pressure was exerted on the CMD, with the name of former Congress minister Vidya Charan Shukla being cited. Shukla, a powerful figure in his time, had a controversial public life. While no formal inquiry has ever probed this alleged influence, its persistent mention within organisational circles has added to concerns about political interference in CPSE appointments.

The unease within WAPCOS is not limited to past events. Currently, allegations are doing the rounds that Tripathi is misguiding the present CMD, Shilpa Shinde, allegedly to create circumstances that could lead to her removal and allow him to take additional charge as CMD. Critics within the organisation describe this as an attempt to consolidate power rather than improve institutional governance.

What has shocked employees and observers alike is the complete absence of visible oversight action despite the gravity of the allegations. There has been no publicly disclosed vigilance inquiry, no forensic audit of recruitment or promotion records, and no action-taken report from the ministry or any statutory body.

This silence, many argue, is as disturbing as the allegations themselves. WAPCOS, being a CPSE, handles public funds and executes strategic infrastructure projects. Its credibility rests on strict adherence to transparency, integrity and accountability. Any compromise at senior levels risks damaging not just the organisation but public trust in the governance framework of CPSEs.

The controversy has raised fundamental questions:

• Was due process followed in Tripathi’s recruitment and promotion?
• Were eligibility criteria diluted or ignored?
• Did political or financial considerations influence PESB recommendations?
• Why has no independent and time-bound inquiry been initiated despite repeated concerns?

Until these questions are addressed through a credible investigation, employees believe the shadow over WAPCOS will continue to deepen. In institutions funded by public money, silence cannot be treated as neutrality. It becomes a statement in itself—one that demands scrutiny, accountability and answers.