TOMCOM silent on form Germany trainees say came after paying Rs 1.28L

Hyderabad: By the time candidates in the Telangana Overseas Manpower Company Ltd’s (TOMCOM) German Ausbildung (vocational training) programme were asked to sign an agreement, they had moved to Hyderabad, started classes and paid about Rs 1.28 lakh each.

The document, a Candidate Agreement Form (CAF) from TOMCOM’s private implementation partner, Fairstreet India Pvt Ltd, arrived a week or more after training began, candidates from all three batches of the Ausbildung programme told Siasat.com. Some signed it more than once over what they were told were “format issues.”

The three batches trained between October 2024 and August 2025, according to data TOMCOM shared with Siasat.com.

The CAF repeated the no-refund rule that TOMCOM’s shortlisting email had already sent out, with one exception. “If the candidate chooses to withdraw from the program for any reason, no refund will be provided for any fees paid to Fairstreet,” it said. There is no refund for missing training or for removal over missed classes, failed assessments or misconduct. 

If a visa is refused, the Rs 25,000 service charge comes back, but not the training and placement fees.

TOMCOM has not said when the form was drafted, who approved it or why, when Siasat.com asked in a Right to Information (RTI) application on September 16 and again on October 23. Candidates allege they were handed it after they had joined. 

‘Will not be refunded under any circumstances’

The no-refund rule came first, from TOMCOM itself. A shortlisting email from TOMCOM’s HR manager, seen by Siasat.com, set the fee at Rs 4,10,400 in four instalments and described the programme as “facilitated by TOMCOM in collaboration with M/s. Fairstreet India Pvt Ltd.”

It was explicit on refunds – “Please note that the fees paid once will not be refunded under any circumstances.”

Fairstreet’s Admission Letter, which TOMCOM’s HR manager sent to candidates as an attachment to that email, and which candidates say was the only Fairstreet document they had when they deposited the second instalment of Rs 1,16,700, contains none of the CAF’s terms on refunds, attendance, assessments, removal or disputes.

Candidates said they signed the CAF anyway, because they had already moved and paid and because they trusted a government agency. One of them told Siasat.com that an official described his questions about the form as “procedural.”

A state agency that is not a party

The copy Siasat.com examined is not signed by TOMCOM. The form names two parties, the candidate and Fairstreet. Yet, it says the candidate “approached Fairstreet through TOMCOM, a Government of Telangana State Undertaking,” and that “the complete program fees will be deposited into the designated account of TOMCOM.” The Admission Letter does not mention TOMCOM at all, although it reached candidates through TOMCOM’s HR manager.

The CAF’s jurisdiction clause gives “Exclusive Jurisdiction” over disputes to the competent court in Lucknow, more than 1,000 km from Hyderabad.

Asked how funds moved, TOMCOM said in its reply to Siasat.com’s September 16 questions that “payments to implementation partners are released in accordance with defined milestones, including registration, completion of training and placement-related stages,” and that “placement-related fees are collected from candidates after receipt of the employment visa, as applicable.”

‘Not applicable’

On the CAF itself, TOMCOM said almost nothing. In its RTI reply, sent by post on October 22, it answered “Not Applicable” to requests for records on the form’s introduction, approval, versions and timing. It left blank two questions on its own role, whether it reviewed or approved the agreement and what versions existed, though the application had asked it to state if no such record existed.

Asked which documents candidates were given and when, it replied (sic): “After joining only Socio Economic Form and Candidate Undetaking Form is taken from candidate. All the points of the above mentioned points are communicated to candidates as part of counclling/ Orientation before joining.”

The reply does not name the CAF or say whether the candidate undertaking form is the same document.

On the agreement’s terms, from fees and refunds to TOMCOM’s own obligations, it said these were “communicated via email individually to candidate,” but supplied no template. It withheld complaints about the agreements and its memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Fairstreet, citing “data protection and confidentiality requirements.” Fairstreet business head Saurav Pandey has told Siasat.com the company “diligently fulfilled its obligations” under that MoU.

To every CAF question Siasat.com sent on September 16, TOMCOM answered “NA,” or not applicable. One of those questions noted that candidates said the CAF came after training began and after they had paid their initial non-refundable instalments, and asked, “Is this normally how the CAF is handled across all TOMCOM programmes?” Another asked whether TOMCOM considered it acceptable that, as candidates say, the CAF’s additional clauses were not communicated to them in writing at admission, and if they were, whether it could provide that correspondence. 

Both got “NA”. Its October 27 reply to the follow-up email did not mention the form.

In its reply to the September 16 questions, TOMCOM also said the programmes are an “ongoing process” and that candidates who discontinued were refunded “subject to the applicable terms.” It did not say which terms applied – the email, which rules out refunds altogether, or the CAF, which refunds only the service charge if a visa is refused. Candidates told Siasat.com that those who had paid the final instalment got that instalment back, but not the rest of the fees they had paid, and only after months of visits to TOMCOM’s office.

What remains unanswered

The central questions remain open. TOMCOM has not said when the CAF was drafted or by whom, whether it reviewed or approved the form before candidates received it, or why it was handed out after.

It has not said how many versions were used, why some candidates had to sign more than once or whether handing candidates an agreement after non-refundable payments is standard practice across its programmes.

(Siasat.com’s investigation into TOMCOM continues. Stay tuned for more reports in this investigative series)

Get the latest updates in Hyderabad City News, Technology, Entertainment, Sports, Politics and Top Stories on WhatsApp & Telegram by subscribing to our channels. You can also download our app for Android and iOS.