CITPR Ltd. recruited 25 students from TTC College of Engineering and Management to work on a project they expected to win, but did not end up getting. As a result, the recruited students were no longer needed. The recruitment manager at CITPR, Mr. Swami, was fired for recruiting the students based on an uncertain prediction. The placement officer at TTC College, Mr. Sampat, did not receive an annual increment because he did not allow the recruited students to participate in other job interviews after their recruitment but before receiving official offer letters. While the actions against Mr. Swami and Mr. Sampat were justified, the situation may have been avoided if proper communication and confirmation of project needs had occurred

1. Recruitment Fiasco at
CITPR Ltd.
A CASE STUDY

2. An overview
CITPR Ltd. is an IT and Consulting company with over 10000 employees and 22 clients globally.
People prefer to work for CITPR Ltd. Because of the following reasons.
• It has excellent HR practices & considers Employees as their biggest Asset.
•Uses careful planning and selection criteria for recruitment. Overall satisfaction among employees is very high.
Key managerial personnel in CITPR
1. Mr Shyamji Bapna – Chairman and MD
2. Mr. T. Pujary – CEO
3. Mr. Gopal Dixit – COO
4. Mr. D. Ganesh – HR Director
5. Mr. VN Swami - Recruitment Manger
6. Mr. Kapoor,- VP (Product Development)

3. Recruitment at TTC college
TTC college of Engineering and Management is famous college in the southern India.
Key persons at TTC College involved with Placement
1. Prof. Parag Thakur – Director
2. Mr. Ravi Sampat – Placement Officer
From last 10 years, CITPR Ltd. is the first company to visit the college for placement drive in
hope of recruiting Crème-de-la-crème from among the students.
On average, it recruits 10 students every year. However, this year it recruited 25 students of
Computer Science & Engineering.

4. The Great Fiasco
• The company recruited 25 students but did not send the official letter to the students.
•On further enquiry by the college they came to know that the company predicted that they
would bag the project from one of their clients and hence this could increase the demand of the
professional would have expertise in .NET.
•Unfortunately they did not get the project and so the recruited students were no more required
as there was no work for them.
•The recruitment manager (Mr. Swami) at CITPR was fired because he recruited predicting that
the company would bag the project , but this prediction was proven false as the project went to
their competitor.
•The placement officer(Mr. Sampat) at TTC college was not given increment for one year because
he did not allow the recruited students to sit for the other interviews.

5. Possible options to avoid the fiasco by
Mr. Ganesh
Mr. Ganesh informed Mr. swami not to go for recruitment until the information about the
overseas Client’s project is ascertained.
The initial step taken by Mr. Ganesh was correct.
However, he could have followed up with the latest developments in the case. This allowed Mr.
swami to make his call and go for the recruitment drive even though he could not reach Mr.
Kapoor for a final confirmation on requirement.
 Even after the drive, if Mr. Ganesh would have taken the initiative of informing the real
situation and the uncertainties attached with it to the college on time, the recruited students
would not have lost their valuable time to participate in recruitment drives of other companies.

6. Serious omissions by Mr. Swami
He gave priority to the tradition of being the first company in the campus of TTC instead to first
ascertaining the requirements of the company.
He failed to inform the Placement officer of the TTC about the uncertainties attached with the
requirement.
In absence of these vital information, The placement officer made the call of not allowing the
placed students to sit for other companies which worsened the situation for both the parties to
a point of no return.
Mr. swami could have waited for the response of Mr. Kapoor, VP-Product Development as his
role was crucial for ascertaining the requirements of .NET professionals.
And the final nail in the coffin was the reluctant behavior of Mr. Swami to gave a clear response
to the queries of the placement officer either formally or informally

7. Are actions against Mr. swami and Mr.
Sampat justified?????
Mr. Swami (Recruitment manager) after the debacle of the recruitment was fired and this was
justified because he being a professional could have foreseen the risk of predicting the
uncertainties that could have misfired the situation.
Mr. Sampat was not given increment for one year and this was justified.
He could have allowed the students to sit for the remaining interviews until and unless the
students or the college got the confirmation mail from the recruiters.