Infosys shares plunge nearly 17%; m-cap drops by Rs 53,451 crore on whistleblower complaint
New Delhi, Oct 22: Shares of IT services firm Infosys on Tuesday plummeted nearly 17 per cent, wiping Rs 53,451 crore from its market valuation, on concerns over a whistleblower complaint which alleged that two top executives of the company were indulging in unethical practices to increase short-term revenue and profits.
The scrip tanked 16.21 per cent to close at Rs 643.30 on the BSE. During the day, it tumbled 16.86 per cent to Rs 638.30, the most since April 2013.
On the National Stock Exchange (NSE), it plunged 16.65 per cent to close at Rs 640.
The sharp fall in the scrip wiped out Rs 53,450.92 crore from the company's market valuation which now stands at Rs 2,76,300.08 crore.
It was the worst-hit among the frontline companies on both Sensex and Nifty.
In terms of traded volume, 117.70 lakh shares of the company were traded on the BSE and over 9 crore shares on the NSE.
According to reports, a complaint by a group that calls itself 'Ethical Employees' has alleged CEO Salil Parekh and CFO Nilanjan Roy were indulging in "unethical practices" to boost short-term revenue and profits.
Infosys on Monday said the whistleblower complaint has been placed before the audit committee as per the company's practice, and that it will be dealt with in accordance with the company's whistleblower policy.
In a statement on Tuesday, Infosys Chairman Nandan Nilekani said the company's audit committee will conduct an independent investigation on whistleblower allegations.
The committee began consultation with independent internal auditors EY, and has retained law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. to conduct an independent investigation, Nilekani noted in his statement to the stock exchanges.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Unreserved vacancies for candidates with disabilities open for all categories: SC
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday said "unreserved" vacancies for Persons with Disabilities (PWD) are an open pool where merit remains the decisive factor and that eligible candidates belonging to any social or special category can be employed.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh set aside a judgement of the Calcutta High Court, saying the "unreserved" category is not a separate "social category" but an open field for all.
It held that a more meritorious PWD candidate belonging to a reserved category like OBC, SC, or ST cannot be barred from an unreserved PWD post simply because a candidate from the "General" category is also available.
"In reservation law, it is well settled that the Unreserved/Open category does not refer to any social/communal category like SCs, STs or OBC. In other words, any post falling under the Unreserved or Open category does not pertain to any particular social category, it provides an open field or pool meant for the world at large, in the sense that it is open to all candidates, irrespective of whether one belongs to any social or special category or not," Justice Singh, who authored the verdict, said.
The court said if an unreserved or open post is meant for the special category of Persons with Disabilities, it means that the said post will be open to all candidates of all vertical social categories, whether Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) or Other Backward Classes (OBC), provided such candidates are also PWD.
"Thus, all candidates, whether SC, ST or OBC, but who are Persons with Disabilities, are equally entitled to compete for the post meant for Persons with Disabilities falling under the Unreserved category, the rationale being that all those who are similarly situated must be treated equally," it said.
The case arose from a recruitment drive of the West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (WBSETCL) for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II.
The notification included one post specifically earmarked for Unreserved (Persons with Disabilities -- Low Vision).
The controversy involved two candidates, an unreserved category candidate with low vision who scored 55.667 marks and an OBC candidate, also with low vision, who scored 66.667 marks.
The WBSETCL appointed the OBC candidate to the post based on his higher merit.
This was challenged by the general category candidate who said since he was a "qualified unreserved candidate", the vacancy should have gone to him and that reserved category candidates should only be considered if no unreserved PWD candidate is available.
While a single-judge bench of the high court dismissed the plea, a division bench reversed that decision, directing the employer to appoint the less-meritorious unreserved candidate.
The WBSETCL had then appealed to the Supreme Court.
