IIFT CHEATING CASE

POINT OF THIS ARTICLE-Its to show how big institutes like IIFT(certainly in top 10) aren't bothered about their next generation of students. This article would provide enough evidence on why I believe that IIFT PAPER wasn't  FAIR or in the worst case it might have even leaked.
Firstly on the day of examination I was shocked, when I saw that paper's were not sealed,

How can an institute of the stature of IIFT doesn't even bother to put a seal on their papers
(cost cutting?? Why rough pages at the end then?), even when there have been cases of leaking of CAT paper in 2003.The paper could have leaked from the printing station or any person who would have packed the papers ( as in the case of CAT 2003).

Secondly, Instructions to the invigilators were not appropriately given; many of them did not even know what the instructions were!
In my center teachers were confused when the papers should be distributed, there were students in several another classes at my center where students fooled the invigilators by stating the instructions are written inside the paper and stated the reason that's why the papers aren't sealed.
I managed to ask one of my friends about it, he told me he had done 7 questions when finally the starting bell rang!! Though he didn't get a call but still 7 questions of DI or LR would mean on an average if you get 5 correct and 2 incorrect= 5x0.8 -2x0.2=2.8 marks! Thus anybody who has missed the  cutoff 27.1 by this margin(2.8) i.e 24.4 was capable of getting a CALL from IIFT.

What's more frustrating is that it happened in many centers, check out threads of pagalguy which states that in other centers of Banglore,Calicut etc there were centers which gave papers 15 mins earlier.
If in 2 hrs paper 1/8 i.e 12.5% extra time is allotted to some students that by large means is unfair and unjust for the hardworking students.
People have filed a PIL against IIFT and its everyone's duty to support the case.

And this isnt the first time this has happened an online petition has been filed on the same issue of invigilators back in 2005.