Summary

CITPR Ltd, an information technology and consulting company with over 10000
employees serving over 22 clients across the globe. This case study discusses
various aspects of the working of Human Resource, for which CITPR was known for
its excellent HR practices and had received rewards like Best Employer, Best Place
to work with etc. The case discusses the problem that the company faces when Mr.
Swami, Recruitment Manager at CITPR didn’t follow the HR process properly and
ignored the instructions which said that no action for recruitment process was to
be taken till the demand was ascertained by the Director himself. Also that Mr.
Swami ignored the process of seeking approval to carry out the recruitment process
and didn’t bother to reach out to the higher management in case of unavailability
of the immediate manager. Due to all this turn of events the future of 25 student
of TTC College of Engineering and Management was on stake, which the company
selected after the campus recruitment process. Also the case discusses the lack of
proactiveness of Mr. R. Sampat, Placement Officer to coordinate with the company
post the confirmation for the offer. Also due to this lack of proactiveness and
bringing the situation in the light of the college director at a very later stage
hampered the future prospects of the students who were selected by the company,
as the college has the policy of not allowing the students who were confirmed and
received the offer by a company. In this situation the students were left stranded
and were subjected to stress and anxiety whether they would receive the offer
letters or not.

Q.1 Discuss the major issues highlighted in the case study.

Ans. The major issues are :
1. The Recruiting Manager at CITPR had selected 25 students from the TTC
college of Engineering and Management, but after 2 months they replied to
the college that the company would take time to decide about hiring. The
CITPR had been one of the top recruiters and had a good reputation of being
the best employer and an ethical company, so this decision of denying the
offer letters to the students after confirmation was not in line with the work
ethics of the company.
 2. Mr. Sampat, Placement Officer, TTC College of Engineering and Management
denied the 25 students who were selected by the CITPR company, because
as per the placement policy of the college, students who were selected and
received an offer were considered to be out of the placement process. But
selected students did not receive any offer even after a month and during
this time most of the good recruiters had come and those 25 selected
students couldn’t sit for those company and they were not allowed by the
college, and now the CITPR company denied the recruitment, it left the
students with no placement and also loss of opportunity.

Q.2 In your opinion could Mr. D. Ganesh have taken some measures to avoid the
embarrassment caused to CITPR? Justify your option with relevant arguments.
Ans. Following are some suggestions that could have avoided the embarrassment
caused to CITPR:
1. Mr. D. Ganesh should have made clear the seriousness of the situation, also
he could have released a list of the job roles for which there was no vacancy,
that would have helped the Recruiting Managers make plans accordingly.
Mr. D. Ganesh should only have made the news of the requirement certain
after the project was in the final negotiation stage. By this the balance
between the demand and recruitment process could have been ensured
better.
2. Mr. D Ganesh could have made certain that any recruiting process would not
be carried out at all, the same should have been communicated that in case
the immediate reporting manager was not available, the approval from the
next senior manager as per hierarchy was a must for any recruitment process
to be carried out. By this any recruitment process could not have been
carried out in absence of approval from the senior management.

Q.3 Elucidate the serious omissions by Mr. Swami related to the campus
recruitment drive at TTC college of Engineering and Management.
Ans.
 1. Mr. Swami should have been proactive to track the confirmed offers for the
selected students who were selected by the CITPR company, and as soon as
the offers were delayed the college director should have been asked to
intervene.
2. Mr. Swami should have tried to get a clear picture as to what the
requirement of the company was, it would have come to light that the
requirement is not there but only because the company believes that it will
get an anticipated project, it was hiring.
3. As soon as the confirmation got delayed from the company and nothing clear
was being communicated, the selected students should have been allowed
to sit for the further placement process and the same should have been
communicated to the company explaining the seriousness of the situation
that the future of the students lies on the offer letters of the company.
Q.4 Do you think the actions taken against Mr. Swami and Mr. Sampat were
justified? Substantiate your stance with reasons.
1. The action taken against Mr. Swami was not justified as because of his negligence
and inability to comply with the directions issued by the higher authorities, and not
communicating and not seeking approval to carry out the recruitment process due
to which the company suffered a negative publicity in the campuses. Since the
CITPR company was known for its HR excellence, and one such incident could
tarnish their reputation, but previous work performance should have been taken
into consideration while taking such a drastic step, he could have been given a
warning, or a lower appraisal if his previous work performance was good.
2. The action taken against Mr. Sampat was justified because being the placement
officer her should have been proactive and should have brought this critical issue
to the light of the director, and should not have stopped the selected student from
participating in the placement process when they didn’t receive any formal
confirmation from the company.s