Is this true?

Mumbai, April 5: The tale of Munnabhai, the lovable rascal who pulled an exam scam to get into a medical college, has leaped off the screen and landed at the doorstep of director Rajkumar Hirani.

Air India pilot and his wife Manjeet Lamba has been accused of failing a test to renew her flying licence and then going on to clear the exam in a second attempt by tweaking rules.

The alleged incident came to light during internal investigations by Air India to verify the credentials of pilots after a fake-licence scandal buffeted the civil aviation industry in the country.

In the wake of reports that some pilots used forged marksheets, licences of 3,000 to 4,000 pilots are being scrutinised by the directorate general of civil aviation (DGCA).

"Capt. Lamba's case was one which came up during Air India's internal scrutiny," an airline source said.

An internal letter signed by a dozen senior check-pilots of Air India, who conduct the tests, says: "She (Capt. Lamba) was unable to clear the route check because of her performance in the same... The areas of weakness were neither discussed nor corrected. However, the candidate... was put for another route check with two other training captains on 04-09-2010.

"Captain Lamba was declared passed without having undergone any corrective training. Relevance guidance material dealing with such case is laid down in a circular (copy enclosed)."

According to the circular, a pilot assessed below standard can appeal for a re-check by any other examiner but it has to follow a laid-down procedure. If the appeal is accepted, the DGCA will constitute a board that will conduct the re-check. The board will decide who will conduct the re-check and the manner in which it should be conducted.

The letter alleges that the re-check was carried out without following the procedure. "The deviation from laid-down procedures... is not appreciated by all of us. It does not inspire confidence among the community," the letter by the check-pilots adds.

The letter dated December 30, 2010, was addressed to the director, training, of the Central Educational Establishment of NACIL, the corporate entity that holds the shares in Air India.

Neither Capt. Lamba nor Rajkumar Hirani could be contacted for comment.

If Capt. Lamba had indeed filed an appeal with the DGCA and it had set up a board for re-check, the airline did not mention that in its response to this paper.

An Air India statement emailed to The Telegraph on Tuesday said: "Pilots have to undergo many checks /tests before getting to fly. Air India's pilots are cleared by the DGCA and this over-75 years old airline never tweaks rules, regulations, guidelines of the regulatory authorities. At Air India, safety of our passengers is never compromised."

An Air India source said the first incident mentioned in the letter took place in August 2010 when Capt. Lamba asked for a route-check " a mandatory test to renew a flying licence.

"She failed the test. According to the norms, a pilot who fails such a test needs to go through mandatory corrective training before being allowed to take the test the second time. This did not happen in the case of Captain Lamba," the Air India official said.

According to the letter, Capt. Lamba's first route check was taken on her request, although it had not been "programmed" (scheduled). An Air India official hinted at a possible feud between pilot lobbies. He pointed out that the alleged incident happened in August 2010 and Capt. Lamba was cleared in September 2010, but the letter of complaint was sent only at the end of December 2010.

"But the question arises why Capt. Laxmi Nagrath, who carried out the first route check, allowed it in the first place, though it was not programmed. Plus she also did not notify the general manager (operations) in writing about the incident," a source said.

The letter mentions that Capt. Lamba's alleged failure was conveyed to the officiating general manager (operations), western region, "telephonically".

The letter from the senior pilots ends with a warning. "The whole episode sends out a wrong message " compromise of air safety, mala fide intentions of high-handed behaviour and non-compliance of laid-down procedures."