EklavyaJEE06

JEE Reforms : IITs give in, JEE, AIEEE to merge

2012-01-28T23:30:00.000-05:00

Combining 12^th standard marks in theselection merit will bring the same 100% cut-off fiasco as recently witnessedby DU, as there are many boards, which will start inflating their marks, insuch a way so as to neutralize the normalization impact. There does not existany effective mechanism to normalize the marks, as was witnessed in BITSPilani, where there were 70% students from a single board despite thenormalization.

Indian Express :: 31 January 2012

IIT JEE set to go, 40% weightage for Class 12

AnubhutiVishnoi,| New Delhi,January 31, 2012

A common aptitude-cum-advanced knowledgetest will replace the IIT Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) and the All IndiaEngineering Entrance Examination (AIEEE) in 2013. Test scores will have 60 percent weight in deciding admissions; school board marks will have 40 per cent.Test and board scores will determine admissions to all centrally fundedengineering institutions.

The common entrance exam, planned as aSAT-type test, is likely to be held online from 2014, and could be given twicea year, highly placed sources said. The paper test is likely to stay on untilthe online system stabilizes.

The NIT council has approved the newformat. All the IITs have agreed too, and are likely to give their formalapproval at a meeting of the Joint Admission Board (JAB) on February 18. Thehuman resource development (HRD) ministry has formed a committee of IITdirectors and CBSE officials to work out the modalities before the meeting.

The ministry has been working on acommon entrance format for over a year, with the aim of reducing the stress oftaking multiple tests for students just out of Class 12, checking the coachingbusiness which promotes learning by rote, and reinforcing the importance ofschool education.

HRD Minister Kapil Sibal plans to takethe proposal to the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) to help buildacceptability and consensus for the common entrance test among stategovernments.

“The common entrance exam will have twoelements — simple aptitude testing to assess scholastic levels, and an advancedsection which a student can choose to either continue with or skip,” said asource.

“This test will essentially produce only scorecards for eachstudent, and the concerned institute will then decide how it will use the 60per cent weight — say, an IIT can rely more on scores achieved on the advancedlevel section than on aptitude. It could be a 30-30 aptitude-advanced knowledgeformat for IITs, and 40-20 for NITs,” the source said.

“While AIEEE and JEE will go, the JABand the Central Counselling Board (CCB) will stay to work on these finer pointsand modalities of admission.”

The JEE currently decides admissions tothe 15 IITs; the AIEEE to the 30 National Institutes of Technology (NITs), 4Indian Institutes of Information Technology (IIITs), and 5 Indian Institutes ofScience Education & Research (IISERs). A host of private engineering andtechnical institutes in the states also use AIEEE scores. Over 10 lakh studentsapply for AIEEE and 5 lakh for JEE every year.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/iit-jee-set-to-go-40-weightage-for-class-12/905885/0

Hindustan Times :: 29 January 2012

IITs give in, JEE, AIEEE to merge

ChetanChauhan, Hindustan Times | New Delhi,January 28, 2012

The Ministry of human resourcedevelopment will soon call a meeting of Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT)Council to stamp a decision to merge the IIT-Joint Entrance Exam (JEE) and AllIndia Engineering Entrance Exam (AIEEE) conducted by the Central Board ofSecondary Education.

After much resistance, the IITs haveagreed to join the ministry’s bid to have a common entrance examination for allengineering colleges in the country. This only happened after there was anagreement that several elements of IIT-JEE will be part of the new nationalcommon examination.

“The new entrance examination will havemany elements of IIT-JEE as we want to ensure that the best brains join ourinstitutes,” said an IIT director requesting anonymity, after a meeting ofselect IIT directors with HRD minister Kapil Sibal.

A formal meeting of the IIT Council tostamp the merger is expected in February.

IIT Kanpur director Sanjay Dande made apresentation on features of the new entrance examination aimed to evaluateskills of a student objectively.

A student’s Class 12 marks and entrance exam score will have equalweightage.

The new examination will be conducted bya joint committee of IIT and Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), whichconducts AIEEE, and will cover all central government engineering colleges andthose in seven states such as Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and West Bengal, which had opted to take students on the basis ofthe AIEEE score.

There are 15 IITs, four IndianInstitutes of Information Technology and 20 National Institutes of Technologyin the country.

The HRD ministry believes that morestates could join in the future and it will try to bring them on board at ameeting of state education ministers on February 15. Over 15 lakh students,including 4.85 lakh for IIT-JEE, appear for different engineering entrancetests in the country every year.

A student wanting admission in anengineering college has to take three to five entrance exams depending on thestream.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/IITs-give-in-JEE-AIEEE-to-merge/Article1-803446.aspx

CVC Silent, MHRD Hands-off : Post Scams, Professors promoted as IIT Directors after indicted by CBI, CAG

2012-01-28T21:29:00.001-05:00

CVCSilent, MHRD Hands-off.

IITKGP's two Professors, who were promoted as IIT Directors, are facing RDAs forMajor Penalty, by CBI, which includes dismissal too. Yet they are continuing on their posts with the tacitsupport of the IIT Board of Governors.

TaintedDirectors and their Associates are having Free Run to Tyrannize theWhistleblower, whose conflict of interest with the Chairman, Mr. Shiv Nadar is on records.

http://eklavyajee06.blogspot.in/2012/01/conflicts-of-interest-between-iit.html

Pioneer :: 29 January 2012

Post Coal Net scam, professors promoted

CBI, CAG reports indicted Director ofIIT Patna, Dean and Senior Professor

Inviolation of Norms, Anil Bhowmick was found to have outsourced the entire jobto M/S TCG (The Chatterjee Group) of an IIT Khargapur Alumnus

Sunday, 29 January 2012 | PNS | New Delhi

Former ISRO chief G Madhavan Nair had toresign from the coveted post of Chairman, Board of Governors of IIT Patna inthe wake of the Government banning his employment following the Antrix-Devascontroversy. However, for the three-year-old IIT Patna, the woes don’t seem tobe ending at just that.

The Director, IIT Patna, Prof Anil K Bhowmick, too ismired in controversy. According to documents in possession with The Pioneer,Bhowmick has been indicted by both the CAG and the CBI for irregularities inthe Coal Net Project scam.

The CBI, which submitted its report wayback in 2007, had recommended Regular Departmental Action (RDA), which includesmajor penalty by way of dismissal from service. On the contrary, though,Bhowmick got promoted as Director IIT Patna in 2008 and continues till date.

Bhowmick was the Dean, SponsoredResearch & Industrial Consultancy (SRIC), IIT Kharagpur, which was awardedthe Coal Net consultancy service. The duration of the project from 2001 to 2005was for computerisation of Coal India Limited (CIL) and its subsidiaries.

The documents state that CBI in itscourse of investigation found that Bhowmick had violated the work order of theCoal Net Project. Accordingly, all documents were to be kept confidential andnot to be divulged to any third party, and no part of the job was to beoutsourced without CIL’s approval.

However, in violation of these norms, he was found to have outsourcedthe entire job to M/s TCG (The Chatterjee Group) of an IIT Kharagpur AlumnusPurunendu Chatterjee. He had sub-contracted the work on back-to-back basis, incomplete violation of the contact.

Further, even the CAG report of 2009-10has pointed out that the Coal Net Project could not be completed even afterseven years and despite spending Rs 39.58 crore

It has blamed IIT Kharagpur, theimplementation agency, for inadequate monitoring of the implementation of theproject resulting in its slow progress that eventually led to the foreclosureof the agreement with the premier institution.

The CBI had also recommended penalty against two seniorIIT-Kharagpur professors — RN Banerjee and the current Dean, SRIC, Professor PPChakraborti — for their involvement in the Coal Net Project irregularities.

As things stand, the top brass at the IITs have been coming underscanner for various scams and irregularities. Prof D Acharya, Director IITKharagpur is under CBI scanner for the All

India

Council for Technical Education(AICTE) scam while serving as its chairman. Prof Madhusudan Chakraborty fromIIT Kharagpur, who is on lien to IIT Bhubaneswar as Director, is also facing aCBI probe due to irregularities in appointments, equipment purchase and travelbills.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/pioneer-news/todays-newspaper/38566-post-coal-net-scam-prof-promoted.html

Times of

India

/ Economic Times :: 05 October 2011

TOI : Rot starts at top: Indicted IIT chiefs go scot-free

ET : CBI indicted IIT chiefs have gone scot-free

Akshay Mukul, TNN | Oct. 05, 2011

NEW DELHI: Poor quality of engineers isnot the only problem afflicting the IITs. The rot has set in from the top. Atleast two of its directors - Damodar Acharya of IIT-Kharagpur and A K Bhowmickof IIT-Patna - are still in office, despite the Central Bureau ofInvestigation's indictment in the past.

The HRD ministry appointed Bhowmick asdirector knowing fully well that the CBI in 2008 had recommended penaltyagainst him. Bhowmick was the professor of rubber technology centre inIIT-Kharagpur and the then dean of Sponsored Research and IndustrialConsultancy Centre (SRIC), when the action was recommended against him.

The CBI found Acharya's involvement in the All

India

Council for Technical Education(AICTE) scam in May. Acharya was the AICTE's chairperson before taking over asdirector of IIT-Kharagpur. Though the agency recommended regular departmentalaction against Acharya in May, the ministry has been delaying the action.

Bhowmick was involved in what ispopularly known as the Coalnet project. In its report, the CBI had stated thatBhowmick, as dean of SRIC accepted the work order issued by the Coal IndiaLimited (CIL), which prohibited outsourcing without the CIL's approval."Still he outsourced the entire job to another firm and thus violated thecondition of work order," the CBI report said.

The agency had also recommended penalty against two otherIIT-Kharagpur professors - R N Banerjee and P P Chakraborti - for theirinvolvement in the Coalnet project.

Acharya even wrote to B Muthuraman,chairperson, board of governors of IIT-Kharagpur, seeking approval to initiatedepartmental proceedings against Bhowmick, Banerjee and Chakraborti, butnothing came out of it. In 2009, Bhowmick was made the director of IIT-Patna,despite CBI's indictment.

Even the Comptroller & AuditorGeneral (CAG) pointed out the Coalnet project's failure. CAG said that as perthe work order, under phase I, out of 117 modules, only 21 modules wereimplemented. Despite this, Rs 6.55 crore was paid to the institute against atotal contracted amount of Rs 8.95 crore for phase I.

The audit body said out of 10 modules to be installed in 36 areasof different subsidiaries under phase II, only a single one was implementedeven though Rs 4.11 core was paid to IIT-Kharagpur. Coalnet remained stillborneven after seven years and an expenditure of Rs 39.58 crore.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rot-starts-at-top-Indicted-IIT-chiefs-go-scot-free/articleshow/10237363.cms

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/10241835.cms

IIT Registrar suspended while Director Acharya faces major penalty charges by CBI in AICTE Scam

2012-01-27T23:03:00.000-05:00

Telegraph :: 28 January 2012

IIT in Bengal suspends official

BASANT KUMAR MOHANTY

New Delhi, Jan. 27: IITKharagpur has suspended registrar D. Gunasekaran for allegedly approvingpayments for a course “in violation of his financial powers” three years ago.

Thetech school’s board of governors approved the suspension last month after theCBI recommended regular departmental action for major penalty against him. Theregistrar was issued suspension orders on Wednesday.

“IIT Kharagpur has suspended the registrarfrom service on disciplinary grounds. I cannot divulge the exact reasons forthe action. We will give the reasons in the chargesheet which will be issued tohim,” officiating registrar T.K. Ghosal told The Telegraph today.

Sources said Gunasekaran allegedlycleared an honorarium of Rs 2.1 lakh towards classes and consultation chargesof some faculty members and other staff holding a self-financing course at theschool. A CBI inquiry was ordered on a complaint made to the government.

After the CBI submitted its report, theschool set up a one-man committee of Justice (retd) Ronojit Mitra to probeadministrative lapses and recommend against the registrar and other officials.

Pending the inquiry, Gunasekaran wassent on deputation and joined as registrar at Chennai’s Indian Maritime University inDecember 2010. In April 2011, he was “verbally” told by director Acharya toproceed on leave. On Wednesday, he was suspended.

The school will chargesheet Gunasekaranwithin six months from the day of suspension. It will then set up anotherinquiry panel that will look into the case, hear the former registrar’sresponse and suggest departmental action.

Gunasekaran could not be contacted forcomment despite repeated attempts.

AnIIT insider alleged the suspension was intended at helping officiatingregistrar Ghosal continue in his post till his retirement in December.

“The IIT authorities want that Ghosalshould continue as officiating registrar till his retirement. Now the procedureof chargesheet and setting up of a separate committee will take about a year.By the time the committee gives its recommendations, Ghosal would have retiredas officiating registrar. If Gunasekaran was allowed to join, Ghosal would havecontinued as deputy registrar,” the source said.

Thereare allegations that Ghosal’s appointment as assistant registrar in 1990s wasillegal. The school had appointed S.K. Poddar, S. Mitra, T.K. Mukherjee, T.R. Maity and Ghosal as assistantregistrars between 1994 and 2000. Ghosal was in 2006 appointed as deputyregistrar and is now the officiating registrar.

All these officials did not fulfil theminimum requirement of 55 per cent marks at the Master’s level. Ghosal hasclaimed that he had a PhD, so he did not need to fulfil the 55 per centcriteria.

Directorin trouble

In a separate case of financialirregularity, IIT Kharagpur director Damodar Acharya is also facing regulardepartmental action for major penalty.

Sources said he is likely to bechargesheeted by the HRD ministry soon. He was showcaused last month but hasnot replied till date.

As All India Council of TechnicalEducation chairperson (May 2005 to June 2007), Acharya had overruled an expertcommittee report that Padmavathi Engineering College waslow on faculty strength and granted it extension of approval.

“Thedirector is likely to be issued a chargesheet. A decision will be taken afterreceiving his reply,” a source said.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120128/jsp/frontpage/story_15061378.jsp

Times of

India

:: 24 December 2011

HRD notice to IIT-Kgp boss in AICTE scam

Akshay Mukul, TNN | Dec. 24, 2011

NEW DELHI: The HRD ministry has soughtexplanation from IIT-Kharagpur director Damodar Acharya after ignoring CBIsrecommendation of regular departmental action against him for about eightmonths.

Sources said, the ministry has asked forAcharyas comments on CBIs report on the All India Council for TechnicalEducation (AICTE) scam that broke during his tenure as the chairperson. He wasthe chairperson of AICTE from May 16, 2005,to June 30, 2007.

An HRD source said, the ministry needs to hear his explanationbefore accepting or rejecting CBIs recommendation. Acharya had denied his rolein the scam to ministry officials. Now, barely six months are left before histenure as director of IIT Kharagpur ends. In fact, the ministry is about toinitiate the process of appointment of new directors for IIT-Kharagpur and Kanpur.

The probe shows that AICTE had started anew system in 2005-06 for extension of approval to technical institutes. Itincluded submitting compliance report along with mandatory disclosures by theinstitutes for extension of approval. The report was to be processed by anexpert panel, the chairperson was to take decision on extension of approval.

The case, involving Acharya, relates to Padmavathi Engineering College. In2006-07,when the institute submitted to the AICTE the proposal for extension ofapproval, a panel recommended to reduce the intake from 180 to 90 seats as itfound 42.5% shortage in faculty members. Even the principal was not apost-graduate, and teachers were not paid AICTE pay scales.

http://lite.epaper.timesofindia.com/getpage.aspx?edlabel=TOIH&pubLabel=TOI&pageid=17&mydateHid=24-12-2011

Hindustan Times :: Kolkata Ed. :: 24 October 2011

Director-registrar row at IIT Kgp

CAMPUS COMMOTION :: Trouble began whenthe registrar wasn't allowed to rejoin the institute by the director.

Mou Chakraborty, Hindustan Times

New Delhi, Oct. 24, 2011

KOLKATA: Differences betweenIIT-Kharagpur director Damodar Acharya and the institute's registrar on lien DGunasekaran came out in the open on Friday, when the director disallowedGunasekaran from rejoining the institute even after the latter had completedhis assignment on deputation with the shipping ministry.

Gunasekaran is now planning to take hiscase to the ministry of human resource development (MHRD) and the board ofgovernors of IITKharagpur.

Gunasekaran, on lien since 2009, wasdeputed by the central government as the registrar of Indian Maritime University,Chennai. His term with the maritime varsity got over on March 31, 2011.

“As soon as my term with the maritimeuniversity got over, I returned to IIT-Kharagpur, my parent institute, but wasasked to go on paid leave for the time being and have since not been calledback,“ Gunasekaran told Hindustan Times.

He once again tried to join theinstitute on October 21 but was formally told that he could not join untilfurther notice. “Gunasekaran put up a notice that he was joining back. Underthe instructions of director Damodar Acharya, I issued an order nullifying theearlier notice since Gunasekaran had no authority to do so and also mentionedthat the institute has not yet accepted him back,“ AK Mazumdar, deputy directorof IIT Kharagpur, told Hindustan Times . “TK Ghosal would continue asofficiating registrar until further notice.“

According to reports, an insider hadfiled a complaint against Gunasekaran in February 2011 stating he hadoverstepped his limit in sanctioning funds for a project in 2004. The director,therefore, did not allow Gunasekaran to rejoin the institute until the enquiryagainst him was over.

“Howcan the director disallow me from joining when he has himself not resigned fromhis post even though a CBI probe against him on the charge of corruption isunder way. In my case, the allegations are baseless. Even the institute isaware of it and has not chargesheeted me,“ Gunasekaran said.

“There is no formal charge against meand my lien, too, is over. In such a situation, no one can stop me from joiningmy parent institution. I would be meeting the human resources ministryofficials and members of the board of governors and then file a formalcomplaint,“ Gunasekaran said. “I have faith in the ministry and the board ofgovernors and am not intending to go to court with this right now.“

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/PUBLICATIONS/HT/HKL/2011/10/24/ArticleHtmls/ht-SPECIAL-Director-registrar-row-at-IIT-24102011003010.shtml?Mode=1

Times of

India

/ Economic Times :: 05 October 2011

TOI : Rot starts at top: Indicted IIT chiefs go scot-free

ET : CBI indicted IIT chiefs have gone scot-free

Akshay Mukul, TNN | Oct. 05, 2011

The CBI found Acharya's involvement in the All

India

The agency had also recommended penalty against two otherIIT-Kharagpur professors - R N Banerjee and P P Chakraborti - for theirinvolvement in the Coalnet project.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rot-starts-at-top-Indicted-IIT-chiefs-go-scot-free/articleshow/10237363.cms

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/10241835.cms

CIC directed release of Director Acharya's details during his leave period after resignation

2012-01-27T23:00:00.000-05:00

CentralInformation Commission

Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing,August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New

Delhi110066

Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000986

Appellant /Complainant : ShriRajeev Kumar, West Midnapore(WB)

Public Authority : Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

(Dr. A. Patro, CPIO & ShriSamanto, Principal – through Videoconferencing)

Date ofHearing : 11 January 2012

Date ofDecision : 11 January 2012

Facts:

1. Shri Rajeev Kumar submitted RTI application dated 13 September 2010 before the CPIO, IndianInstitute of Technology, Kharagpur, seeking the details of the resignation,leave and reinstating of Professor D. Acharya from the post of Directorship ofthe Institute through 8 points enclosed herewith as Annexure A.

2. Vide CPIO Order dated 28 September 2010, CPIO, without stating the reason did not provideany information to the Appellant.

3. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, Appellant preferredappeal dated 9 October 2010, before the First Appellate Authority.

4. Vide FAA Order dated 25 June 2010, the FAA upheld the CPIO Order through his combinedorder for several separate RTI Applications.

5. Matter was heard today. Both the parties were presentat the hearing. The Appellant was present in person. The respondents werepresent via videoconferencing at Kharagpur.

6. The Respondents submitted before the Commission thatthey could not furnish the information as the information is available in afiduciary relationship with the concerned person and Appellant has notestablished any larger public Interest in disclosure of such information.

Decision notice

7. The Commission is of the view that the Respondentpublic authority is completely mistaken in their understanding of the term‘fiduciary’ used in the RTI act, 2005.

8. The Supreme court in the case Central Board ofSecondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[2011 (8) SCALE 645] considered the meaning of the words ‘information availableto a person in his fiduciary capacity’ and observed thus:

“…But the words ‘information availableto a person in his fiduciary relationship’ are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTIAct in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons whoact in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary orbeneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by theactions of the fiduciary – a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of thetrust, a guardian with reference to a minor / physically / infirm / mentally challenged,a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant withreference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agentwith reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a directorof a company with reference to a shareholder, an executor with reference to alegatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer withreference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and anemployee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer.”

9. Thus in the present case, the issue of appointment ofthe Director of the Institute cannot be one of moral or personal responsibility,due to the better or superior knowledge or training, or superior status of thefiduciary is as such procedural and of the nature of general administrational stepstaken in the normal course of the functioning of the Public Authority andshould be transparent and accountable to the citizens of the country.

10. Moreover, the Commission through many of its previousorders has reiterated that if a non disclosure / exemption is being taken bythe Public authority, then a speaking order must be passed explaining in detailthe reasons for not furnishing the information to the Appellant.

11. Also, respondents have disposed several RTIApplications through a common order, thereby increasing the complexity for disposalof the present case. Respondents are directed not to repeat such a method ofdisposing of the RTI Applications and to treat each RTI Application separatelyand independently of each other. The Respondent are thus reminded for the applicationof the above mentioned practices in promoting the objectives if the RTI Act,2005.

12. Thus no fiduciary relationship exist for nondisclosure of information, and the Commission direct the respondents to furnishpoint wise reply to the Appellant within three weeks of the receipt of theorder.

13. Since the PIO has failed to respond to the RTI application mentioned above in time, he/she is, therefore,required to send his/her explanation in writing by 31.3.2012 to showcause as to why a penalty should not be imposed for non supply ofinformation.

14. He/she should also appear before this Commission on 9.4.2012 at 11.15 AM at NIC District Centre, 2nd. Floor, L.A. Building, District Magistrate’s Office, District –West Midnapore721101 (West Bengal)Contact Officer : Mr. Jageshwar Sahu,Scientist D and Contact No. 03222263506.

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)

InformationCommissioner (DS)

Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra)

Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar

Annexure A

1. A copy of the letter which Prof D. Acharya submitted tendering hisresignation from the post of the Directorship of the Institute owing moralresponsibility for the death of a student.

2. One copy each of all the minutes of the Meetings of the Board ofGovernors, IIT Kharagpur which discussed this matter and later re-instatedProfessor D. Acharya as the Director, IIT Kharagpur.

3. One copy each of all those reports which were the basis forre-instating Professor D. Acharya as theDirector, IIT Kharagpur.

4. How was the period from 22/03/09 to 17/05/09 treated as ‘On Duty’ or ‘On Leave’? Kindly specify with the typeof leave or type of duty he carried out during the specified period.

5. List the dates on which Professor D. Acharya was out of theKharagpur during the period from 22/03/09 to 17/05/09. Was he out of Kharagpur on Duty, official assignments or hispersonal work? Kindly specify the nature of his official assignments, if any.

6. Total amount of the salary compensation including TA/DA allowancesand other emoluments which were paid to Professor D. Acharya for the periodfrom 22/03/09 to 17/05/09. Kindly provide copies ofall such payment made.

7. One copy each of the Office Orders in connection with hisleave-records (including out-station leave records) during the period from 22/03/09 to 17/05/09.

8. One copy each of the pages from his service book which hasrecorded entries of the period from 22/03/09 to 17/05/09.

Background:-- Professor D. Acharya resigned, on 23/03/09, from the post of IITDirector accepting moral responsibility for the death of a student in thecampus. He proceeded on leave after handing over the charge to the then DeputyDirector, Professor M. Chakraborty, who was appointed as the OfficiatingDirector. Later, Professor Acharya re-joined back as Director on 17/05/09.

Subsequently,by a Board of Governors (BoG) order,dated 12/04/10, Professor Acharya’s period of his relieving duty was treatedthat “he was available in theresidence-cum-office at IIT Kharagpur campus during the period from March 23,2009 to May 17, 2009, and the period of his absence be not debited from his personal leaveaccount.”

Strangely,such a post-facto conversion of his resignation cum leave period implied thatthere were two full-time directors, on public exchequer, concurrently workingin IIT Kharagpur. Therefore,the appellant, through an RTI Application, dated 13/09/10, desired to seekinformation related to Professor Achraya’s resignation, BoG meeting minutes,movements during the period and the related documents, in larger publicinterest.

In response, thePIO, vide his letter, dated 28/09/10, hadcontrary statements that – (i) “These are in anyway available in the publicdomain”, (ii) “One can seek information, not the information, in desired mode”,and (ii) “Since you have sought information from documents which are eitherabsolutely private or related to a specific official, kindly explain why do youconsider that all those information . . . can be considered for larger publicinterest.”

The appellant, in his appeal dated 09/10/10 to the First AppellateAuthority (FAA), underlined the contradictions that if the information isavailable in the public domain then the PIO would have straight-forwardedsupplied the information.

The public interests areobvious that the IIT Director being the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of theprestigious IIT, should be above suspicion. The information regarding the twoIIT Directors, working concurrently, on public exchequer, should be madepublicly available.

CIC ordered release of details of Ext. work. undertaken by IIT faculty

2012-01-27T22:55:00.000-05:00

CentralInformation Commission

Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing,August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New

Delhi 110066

Appeal: No.CIC/DS/A/2011/000343

Appellant /Complainant : Shri Rajeev Kumar, Kharagpur

PublicAuthority : IIT, Kharagpur

( Shri A.Ptra, CPIO and Sh.R.K. Sarkar Advocate – throughvideoconferencing)

Date of Hearing : 30 September 2011

Date of Decision : 30 September 2011

Facts:

1. Shri Rajeev Kumar, submitted RTIapplication dated 17 June 2010 before the CPIO, Indian Institute oftechnology, Kharagpur to obtain information for a period of five yearspertaining to Adjunct faculty etc through seven points – enclosedherewith as Annexure A.

2. Vide CPIO order of 7 July 2010,information was furnished to the appellant which did not satisfy him.

3. Appellant preferred appeal dated 8 August 2010before the first appellate authority.

4. Matter was disposed of vide FAA order of2 September 2010.

5. Appellant preferred second appeal beforethe Commission.

6. Matter was heard today. Appellant waspresent as above in person. Respondent was heard via videoconferencing fromKharagpur. Respondent confirmed that data as sought by the appellant isavailable with the public authority but that it is scattered and cannot beeasily collected.

7. Appellant submitted that post 2005, thisinformation is computerized in SRIC and Finance Section. Appellant showedevidence of computerized data by way of printout from the database.

Decision notice

8. Having heard both parties, it isdirected that appellant will send a copy of the documents referred to by him atthe hearing to the respondent under covering letter within one week of receiptof the order. The matter is remanded back to the respondent to ascertain thetrue facts and in case the information is available with them as stated by theappellant, the same will be provided to him within four weeks thereafter.

Howeverif the respondent, after checking the true facts stands by the averments thatthe information sought by the appellant is scattered and can not be easily gatheredwithout committing huge resources of the public authority then supportingaffidavit will be provided to the Commission with copy to the appellant.

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)

InformationCommissioner (DS)

Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra)

Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar

Annexure A

1. List ofthose members of IIT Kharagpur’s faculty who were/are Adjunct Faculty to otherInstitutes/Colleges during the period – kindly provide the names of the facultymembers along with the name of the institutes, period and the amount of remuneration,if any.

2. List of those members of IIT Kharagpur’s faculty who were/are givingvisiting/special lectures in other Institutes/Colleges/Companies -- kindlyprovide the names of the faculty members along with the name of theinstitutes/colleges/companies, period and the amount of remuneration, if any.

3. List of those members of IIT Kharagpur’s faculty who were/are researchcollaborators with other Institutes/Companies and were/are doing jointresearch/PhD guidance -- kindly provide the names of the faculty members alongwith the name of the institutes, period and the amount of remuneration, if anypaid.

4. List ofthose members of IIT Kharagpur’s faculty who were/are working as consultants orhaving consultancy projects from other Institutes/companies -- kindly providethe names of the faculty members along with the name of theinstitutes/companies, type of work, period and the amount of consultancy asreceived by the faculty members as their fee/honorarium.

5. List ofthose members of IIT Kharagpur’s faculty who were/are working as committeemembers/experts/chairperson etc. of expert/special committees of otherInstitutes/companies/ Departments/Ministries -- kindly provide the names of thefaculty members along with the name of the institutes/companies/Departments/Ministries,type of work, period and amount of remuneration, if any.

6. List ofall those cases in which the competent authority of IIT Kharagpur did notpermit faculty members to undertake the above type of the additional work ---kindly provide the names of the faculty members along with the details of theadditional work and reasons for the denial.

7. Kindlyprovide the period of absence from IIT Kharagpur for each of the above facultymembers in attending to above type of the work as listed in Item nos. 1 to 6?

CIC directed Dean PGSR to affirm an affidavit that MTech admissions are not based on GATE performance

2012-01-27T22:53:00.000-05:00

CentralInformation Commission

Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing,August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New

Delhi110066

Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000988

Appellant /Complainant : ShriRajeev Kumar, West Midnapore(WB)

Public Authority : Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

(Dr. A. Patro, CPIO & ShriSamanto, Principal – through Videoconferencing)

Date of Hearing : 11 January 2012

Date of Decision : 11 January 2012

Facts:

1. Shri Rajeev Kumar submitted RTI application dated 30 August 2010 before the CPIO, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur,seeking the details of all the candidates who were called for selectionInterview at Different places in

India

for GATE Performance based admission to variousM.Tech Programmes of IIT, Kharagpur through 7 points enclosed herewithas Annexure A.

2. Vide CPIO Order dated 21 September 2010, CPIO did notprovide any information to the Appellant on the grounds that the Institute didnot offer GATE Performance based admission to any of the M. Tech Programes of IIT,Kharagpur.

3. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, Appellant preferredappeal dated 9 October 2010, before the First Appellate Authority.

4. Vide FAA Order dated 8 November 2010, the FAA upheld the CPIO Order through his combinedorder for several separate RTI Applications.

5. Matter was heard today. Both the parties were presentat the hearing. The Appellant was present in person. The respondents werepresent at Kharagpur and heard via videoconferencing.

6. The Respondents submitted before the Commission thatthey could not furnish the information as the Institute did not offer GATEPerformance based admission to various M.Tech Proggrammes of IIT as per theinformation provided by Dean (PGS) i.e. holder of Information to the CPIO.

7. The Appellant insisted that such information ispatently incorrect.

Decision notice

8. The Commission, after hearing both the partiesremands the matter back to the CPIO to recheck the facts and if alreadyprovided information by the CPIO is correct then Affidavit will be filed tothis effect by Dean (PGS) of the Institute and submitted to the Commission witha copy to the Appellant.

9. Information is to be provided within four weeks ofthe receipt of the Order.

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)

InformationCommissioner (DS)

Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra)

Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar

Annexure A

1. Softcopy information (in a CD) of allthe candidates who were called for Selection Interview at different places in

India

for GATE performance based admission to various M.Tech. programmes of IIT Kharagpur forthe academic year 2010-11 with the following details of all candidates whoappeared in Selection Interview --- Name, Category, Gender, Parent’s name, PIN,Year of graduation, cgpa/%age score and name of the University awardingBE/B.Tech. degree, GATE performance (percentile, score and raw marks), marksobtained in interview, Interview board identification no., aggregate marks usedin the final merit list, admission offer made or not, candidate joined theprogram or not.

2. Criteria and/or the marking scheme for evaluating the candidate’sperformance at interview.

3. Criteria and/or the scheme to calculate the final aggregate scorefrom GATE and Interview scores.

4. Was any normalization performed in the interview marks ofdifferent interview boards? If yes, provide the normalization procedure.

5. Names and designation of the members of Interview Boards.

6. Criteria to decide the cutoffs for --- (i) short-listing thecandidates for interview, and (ii) for placing the candidates in the finalmerit list.

7. Total number of available seats and seats filled in each of theM.Tech. programme for GATE performance based admission.

Background:--The appellant requested forinformation pertaining to admissions in M.Tech. programme based on GATEperformance, vide his RTI Application, dated 30/08/10.

In response, the PIO, vide hisletter, dated 21/09/10 wrongly and malafidely submitted that “the Institute did not offer GATEperformance based admissions in various M.Tech. programmes.” Needles to saythis was a wrong statement. Contrary to above statement, the same PIO’s lettercontained a web-link containing the result of M.Tech. admissions. Concurrently,the deemed PIO (Dean PGSR) in hisemail, dated 19/09/10, informed the appellant that the pertinent informationwas put on the web-site; though none of the information sought was available inhis 200-odd page document.

The appellant in his appeal,dated 09/10/10,appealed to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) that the PIO’s letter wasmisleading; none of the information as sought was available on the web-link asspecified. The Deemed PIO was also informed on 09/10/10 that the information sought is notavailable in his 200-odd page document.

Thentaking a U-Turn, the Deemed PIO (Dean PGSR), in his email, dated 25/10/10 assured the appellant that theinformation would be made available after the first semester result, i.e., inDecember 2010.

In disposal of the first appeal,the FAA did not consider any of the issues, raised by this appellant. Whiledisposing of the appeal, the FAA, in his disposal, dated 08/11/10, concluded that “the appellant may get the certification on the downloaded materialfrom the concerned information holder (i.e., the Deemed PIO).” It may be notedthat the RTI AcT facilitates information supply through a single window.

Asper the assurance given by the Deemed PIO and the directions of the FAA, theappellant again reminded the Deemed PIO, through his email, dated 02/01/11,for making available the information sought. Then, Deemed PIO, vide his emaildated 04/01/11,backtracked from his assurance and did not provide the information.

CIC ordered for admission details of faculty wards of IIT Kgp & Kanpur

2012-01-27T22:48:00.000-05:00

CentralInformation Commission

Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing,August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New

Delhi110066

Appeal: No.CIC/DS/A/2011/000344

Appellant /Complainant :Shri Rajeev Kumar, West Midnapore (WB)

Public Authority : Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur

(Shri A.Ptra, CPIO and Sh.R.K. SarkarAdvocate – through videoconferencing)

Dateof Hearing : 30 September 2011

Dateof Decision : 30 September 2011

Facts:

1. Appellant submitted RTI application of 25 January 2010 before the CPIO, Indian Institute of Technology,Kharagpur to seek information regarding admission given to wards/dependents ofall faculty members for any degree/diploma program of IIT, Kharagpur as performat provided.

2. Vide CPIO order of 26 February 2010, information was furnished to the appellant.

3. Appellant preferred appeal dated 6 March 2010 before the first appellate authority.

4. Matter was decided vide FAA order of 23 March 2010 vide which the order of the CPIO was upheld.

5. Appellant moved the Commission in second appeal.

6. Matter was heard today. Respondent as above, washeard via videoconferencing from Kharagpur. Appellant was present in person andmade submissions.

Decision notice

7. After hearing both parties, Commission remands thematter back to the CPIO with directions to ascertain the complete facts andprovide the same to the appellant within four weeks of receipt of order.

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)

InformationCommissioner (DS)

Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra)

Dy.Secretary & Dy. Registrar

Background:-- Theappellant requested for information related to admission, in IITs, of the wardsof all the faculty members of IIT Kharagpur, vide his RTI application, dated 25/01/10. Inresponse, the PIO, vide his letter, dated 26/02/10, submitted a half-page of information,pertaining to a very few faculty wards (fourteen only). The informationsupplied was grossly incomplete. Therefore,the appellant submitted in his first appeal that even the well known cases,including the wards of the Current Director, Deputy Director, Deans etc. whohad studied in IIT Kharagpur, were suppressed.

Indisposal of the first appeal, the FAA knowingly misled the appellant by statingthat “we (FAA) have checked again withthe database and we (FAA) cannot add further to (the) list already supplied.”Since disposal of the appeal was solely aimed at suppressing information aboutthe admission of IIT’s top executives, the appellant submitted a review appealto FAA that disposal of the first appeal was a deliberate attempt to willfuland malafide suppression of the information. The FAA disposed-off the reviewappeal that the RTI Act does not empower the FAA to reopen an appeal which wasalready disposed-off.

Then,taking a complete U-turn, the respondent sent 104 pages of information(including mostly of garbage to mislead) to the appellant just a few days afterthe FAA was penalized by CIC in an another case. The supply of such a huge pack of garbageinformation is mainly aimed at camouflaging the information of consequence sothat the information seeker could not make use of the information conveniently.

Yet,the information related to admission of the wards of IIT’s top administrators (directors, deputy directors, deansetc.) remained suppressed.

A few sample well Known cases of the wardsof IIT KGP Administrators are:-- Wards of current Director (Prof. D. Acharya),Deputy Director (Prof. A.K. Mazumdar), IIT KGP’s professors (on lien) asDirector, IIT Patna (Prof. A.K. Bhowmick), Director, IIT Bhubneshwar (Prof. M.Chakraborty), VC (Prof. R.V. Rajakumar), Director, NIT Rourkela (Prof. S.K.Sarangi), current Dean, Alumni (Prof. A. Patra), current Dean, CE (Prof. S.Sengupta), current GATE Chairman (Prof. S. Sen), past JEE Chairman (Prof. V.K.Tewari), Chairman, Students’ Funds (Prof. V.R. Desai), ex GATE Chairman &Prof.-in-Charge (Exams) (Prof. B. Maiti), all three wards of ex Prof.-in-Charge(Exams.) (Prof. P.D. Srivastava), both wards of Chairman, CSE Purchase Comm.(Prof. S. Ghosh), ex CSE Head (Prof. A. Pal), ex BoG Member (Prof. S.K. Roy), OfficiatingRegistrar (Dr. T.K. Ghosal) and wards of many other current and pastadministrators studied and/or studying in IIT Kharagpur.

CentralInformation Commission

Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing,August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New

Delhi110066

Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000342

Appellant /Complainant :Shri Rajeev Kumar, West Midnapore (WB)

Public Authority : Indian Institute ofTechnology, Kanpur(UP) (Sh. C.P. Singh, CPIO, Sh.R.K.Sachan, AA, Sh. Sanjay Mittal, Deen –through video Conferencing)

Date of Hearing : 30 September 2011

Dateof Decision : 30 September 2011

Facts:

1. Appellant submitted RTI application of 7 March 2010 before the CPIO, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur to obtain information regarding all cases of admissionsof the wards of faculty members/scientific officers etc of the Institute since2000 in a format provided by him – enclosed herewith as Annexure A.

2. Vide CPIO order of 16 June 2010, appellant was informed that this information is notmaintained by the Institute and in case the appellant provided the list ofnames of the wards, the CPIO would make an attempt to dig out the requestedinformation.

3. Appellant preferred appeal dated 28 June 2010.

4. Matter was adjudicated upon vide FAA order dated 28 July 2010. Opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the parties. Itwas also placed on record that The Dean of Academic Affairs maintains records pertainingto the students as sought by the appellant limited only to the faculty membersof IIT Kanpur and that information pertaining to the faculty/Scientific Staffwas held by the Dean of Faculty Affairs and that there was no mechanism inplace which would establish any correlation between the information held bythese two offices. Also, that the information was not maintained in the mannersought by the appellant.

5. Appellant preferred second appeal before the Commissionto challenge the above orders.

6. Matter was heard today. Both parties were present asabove in person and made submissions. Respondents maintained the position heldby them in the abovementioned orders. Appellant countered by stating that itwas technologically simple and feasible to merge the two sets of informationand furnish the same to him.

Decision notice

7. After bearing in mind the averments made by both theparties, Commission places on record that appellant has restricted theinformation sought by him to IIT Kanpur only.

8. Accordingly information to be provided to the appellantwithin four weeks of receipt of the order.

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)

InformationCommissioner (DS)

Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra)

Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar

CIC directed IIT Madras to release JEE 2010 data

2012-01-27T22:45:00.000-05:00

CentralInformation Commission

Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing,August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New

Delhi110066

Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000341

Appellant /Complainant :Shri Rajeev Kumar, West Midnapore (WB)

Public Authority : IndianInstitute of Technology, Madras

Chennai (Sh. A.Thirunavakarasu, CPIO, Sh. Sriram, Dean& FAA, & Sh. Kharthik Rajan Legal Advisor – through video Conferencing)

Dateof Hearing : 30 September 2011

Dateof Decision : 30 September 2011

Facts:.

1. Submitted RTI application dated 14 June 2010 beforethe CPIO, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras to obtain informationregarding names and other details in respect of all candidates who appeared inboth papers of JEE 2010 in mathematics, physics and chemistry along with bothways of evaluation which was undertaken due to corrective measures etc. –enclosed here with as Annexure A.

2. Vide CPIO order of 16 July 2010, disclosure of the requested information was denied.

3. Appellant preferred appeal dated 18 August 2010 before the First Appellate Authority.

4. Matter was decided vide FAA order dated 17 September 2010 by upholding the orderof the CPIO.

5. Appellant preferred second appeal before theCommission.

6. Matter was heard today. Appellant was present asabove in person and made submissions. Respondent was present as above at Chennaiand was heard via videoconferencing.

7. Respondent cited previous order of the Commissionvide which respondent was directed to provide the requested information to the appellantin respect of the years 2006 to 2009. He therefore pressed for information tobe provided to him. He also submitted that this information is required by himfor analysis/research. Appellant also confirms that the names of thecandidates, parents name and pin code are already available on the website butthat the SC/ST categorization of candidates is not uploaded. Respondent statesthat no intermediate data is generated and stored.

Decision notice

8. Commission has heard both parties. Accordinglyrespondent is directed to provide affidavit to the Commission that nointermediate is generated and stored with copy to the appellant within threeweeks of receipt of order

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)

InformationCommissioner (DS)

Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra)

Dy. Secretary & Dy.Registrar

Annexure A

A CD containing the following details ofall candidates who appeared in both papers of JEE 2010 marks --- RegistrationNo., Name, Category, Gender, Parent’s name, PIN, Marks in Mathematics, Physics,Chemistry, as well as separately in both papers I and II and in bothways of evaluation (sequential question number-wise and subjectheadings-wise), as was done due to Corrective error measures taken, and AIR, ifany.

==============================================================

Background: The appellant had requested forinformation, vide his RTI application, dated 14/06/10, related to IITs’ Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) 2010,which was conducted in April 2010 and the result was announced in May 2010.

Inresponse to appellant’s RTI application, the CPIO of IIT Madras refused toprovide any of the information, vide his letter, dated 16/07/10 by stating thereasons which are in violation of the RTI Act. In disposal of the First Appeal,dated 18/08/10,the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated in his letter, dated 17/09/10 that the letter furnished by the PIO was inorder and proper. While disposal of the appeal, the FAA did not consider any ofthe grounds of the appeal submitted by the appellant.

It may kindly be noted that none of theexemption clause is quoted while denying the information. None of the requestedinformation is exempted from disclosure. CIC in the past, vide Order No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001088/5392 dated 06/11/09, ordered IIT Guwahati for disclosureof the identical information of the similar examination of 2009, the JEE 2009.

CentralInformation Commission

Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing,August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New

Delhi110066

Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000345

Appellant /Complainant :Shri Rajeev Kumar, West Midnapore (WB)

Public Authority : Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai

(Shri Sriram, Dean & AA & Sh. Kartik Rajan–Through videoconferencing)

Dateof Hearing : 30 September 2011

Dateof Decision : 30 September 2011

Facts:

1. Appellant submitted RTI application dated 14 September 2010 before the CPIO, IndianInstitute of Technology Madras,Chennai to obtain information regarding the students who had attempted aquestion for each question of each paper – I and II in both ways of evaluation(sequential question number wise and subject headings –wise) – enclosedherewith as Annexure A.

2. Vide CPIO order dated 6 October 2010, appellant was informed that the entire evaluationprocess is computerized and that the program outputs only the marks obtained ineach subject for every candidate. Further that no other intermediate resultsare stored.

3. Appellant preferred appeal dated 14 October 2010before the first appellate authority which was decided vide FAA order of 19November 2010 by concurring with the order of the CPIO.

4. Appellant preferred second appeal before theCommission.

5. Matter washeard today. Appellant was present in person. Respondent was present as aboveand was heard from Chennai via videoconferencing. Appellant was provided a copy of data received from Kanpur IIT who haveprovided similar data to the appellant and based on this extracted data ofanswer sheet from which the actual score is calculated.

Decision notice

6. Having heard both parties the matter was remandedback to the CPIO to ascertain whether this data is available. Meanwhileappellant is directed to provide a copy of the order of the first appellateauthority and a copy of his own submissions to CPIO, IIT madras who will bearthese submissions in mind and make every attempt to obtain the requested informationon the basis of records held by them.

7. Information to be provided within four weeks ofreceiving the order. In case CPIO is not able to obtain the requestedinformation from the existing records of the Institute, he will provideaffidavit to that effect to the Commission with copy to the appellant.

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)

InformationCommissioner (DS)

Authenticated true copy:

(T. K. Mohapatra)

Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar

Annexure A

Kindly provide the number of students, who havedone a question – correctly, wrongly and not attempted – for each question ofeach paper I and II in both ways of evaluation (sequential question number-wise and subjectheadings-wise).

================================================================

Background: Theappellant had requested for information, vide his RTI application, dated14/09/10, related to IITs’ Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) 2010, whichwas conducted in April 2010 and the result was announced in May 2010.

Inresponse to appellant’s RTI application, the PIO of IIT Madras refused toprovide the information, vide his letter, dated 06/10/10 by stating that the “programoutputs only the marks obtained in each subject for every candidate. Noother intermediate results are stored”.

Itis a well established procedure that every computer programs outputs theintermediate data, which is used to check the correctness and verify theoutputs. The intermediate data is also used to further analyze theexamination’s output, in general, form many different views. This is a standardprocedure for a task done with the help of computers, used in an examination.In the absence of such intermediate data, a computer program is nottrust-worthy. Therefore, the PIO’s response is aimed at deemed refusal ofinformation.

Conflicts of Interest of Mr. Shiv Nadar with Whistleblower Kumar :: First, in First BoG Meeting of Mr. Nadar "Shoot the whistleblower, safeguard all the tainted director, deans and others"

2012-01-05T07:07:00.000-05:00

Conflictsof Interest of IIT Whistleblower Professor with Mr. Shiv Nadar, Chairman, Board of Governors, IITKharagpur

First in First BoG Meeting of Mr. Nadar "Shoot the whistleblower, safeguard the tainted director Prof. Acharya, deans and others"

1. Whistleblower Professor Kumar appraised the new Chairman Mr. ShivNadar with manyof the irregularities/frauds on 17/04/11 and 22/04/11. Instead of any investigation,Mr. Nadar, approved Kumar’s suspension in his very first BoG meeting on 22/04/2011. The following are on records:--

(a) Kumar did not recommendaccreditation for postgraduate (CSE) program of Mr. Nadar’ SSN College of Engineering. Later, thecollege was accredited by discarding experts’ report. Though, such cases areunder CBI scanner in AICTE Scam, it isnot understood why Nadar’s SSN College is not under investigation by CBI.

Instead, SSN College is being considered for adeemed Univ. status, in haste, when the matter is pending in the Apex Court. The information, under RTIAct, is suppressed by National Board of Accreditation (NBA), whose currentChairman, Prof. B.C. Mazumdar, ex-Dy. Dir., IIT has conflicts of interest.

It may be noted that the then AICTE Chairman, Prof. R.A. Yadav,has been arrested and terminated from service, while the then another AICTE Chairman,Prof. D. Acharya (current Director, IIT Kharagpur), being indicted for the samecharges, by CBI, is allowed to continue and suspend the whistleblower Prof.Kumar.

(b) Kumar questioned the wisdom ofawarding of a D.Sc. degree to Mr. Shiv Nadar, IIT KGP’s vendor/supplier, in theSenate on 28 May 2010.

2. The dividends, to DirectorProfessor Acharya, of awarding a D.Sc. to a vendor/supplier, are visible fromthe very first month of Mr. Nadar’s taking over the Chairmanship.

(a) Mr. Nadar allowed Prof. Acharya to continue to work as theDirector despite Prof. Acharya’s being indicted by CBI; CBI recommended majorpenalty against Prof. Acharya’s role in infamous AICTE scam. (It may be notedthat other AICTE officials, for the similar offence, have been arrested andeven terminated from the service.)

(b) Prof. Acharya’s 400 millionCoal-Net projectwas rapped by CAG for “ ... theimplementation of CoalNet remained unfruitful even after seven years andspending Rs.39.58 crore.”

No action had been taken yet by the Board of Governors mainly dueto Prof. Acharya being the primeconsultant of the project. Rather, all the charged professors includingthen Dean, Prof. A.K. Bhowmick (now, Director, IIT Patna), current Dean, Prof.P.P. Chakravarti, and senior Professor R.N. Banerjee have beenpromoted/awarded.

It's a mystery how Prof. Bhowmick got CVC clearance for hisappointment as Director, IIT Patna, at a time when major penaltyrecommendations, by CBI against him, were pending.

3. Mr. Shiv Nadar’s HCL, a vendor/computer supplier, for profits, hasbeen provided office space and a telephone connection in IIT Kharagpur. HCL is the only computercompany which has been so favored. HCL has long been acquiring contracts forsupply of computers, modems and other accessories, networkinstallation/maintenance over many decades. Such contracts/deals have been incontroversies.

Immediately after, Mr. Nadar’s joining as Chairman, IIT Kharagpur,it is alleged that a hundreds ofmillions deal, approved by Mr. Nadar, for himself, through BSNL. The dealis allegedly outsourced to HCL ComNet. IIT did not provide the details under anRTI query.

4. Mr. Nadar owns two privateinstitutions – SSN College and Shiv Nadar University. He is concurrently theChairman, Board of Governors (BoG), IIT Kharagpur, in the same streams ofScience, Engineering, Humanities & Management, thus inviting deep conflictsof interest.

There cannot be such a parallelelsewhere that a person, who is a vendor, for profit, in an Institute, is madethe Chairman of the same Institute, and is also running two Privateuniversities.

Most importantly, Mr. Shiv Nadar cannot be the Head, Board ofManagement of any of his own Universities, not having the requisitequalifications, as enshrined in the UGC Regulations, 2010. Yet he is the Chairman, Board of Governors of the world renownedcentre of excellence, the IIT Kharagpur.

The emerging such nexus between academic administrators andcorporate tycoons was severely criticized by some of the vigilant non-IITCouncilors, in the IIT Council meeting, chaired by Mr. Kapil Sibal on 14/09/11.Instead of defending his presence, Mr. Shiv Nadar made a quick exit from themeeting, though Mr. Nadar is still continuing as Chairman, IIT Kharagpur.

5. The NRI, Mr. Arjun Malhotra, a Co-Founder of HCL,who is recently nominated as Chairman, Resource Management, IIT Kharagpur, is aSpecial Invitee in Board of Governors, IIT Kharagpur. His attendance in the IITKGP’ Board of Governors Meeting, on 15/09/11, is on record.

6. It appears that Mr. Nadar outsourced his BoGresponsibilities to HCL co-founder (Mr.Arjun Malhotra), HCL President (Mr.Saurav Adhikari), HCL General Manager (Mr.Pankaj Mahajan), the ‘Tainted’Director (Prof. D. Acharya) and Fox Mandal Little Solicitors, who arerunning the Institute.

7. The above team and theirassociates are solely aimed at “Shootthe messenger, Eliminate the whistleblower.”

8. As observed by the thenChairman, Board of Governors, IIT KGP, Mr.B. Muthuraman (Vice President, Tata Sons) that “IITBoard of Governors were becoming redundant with no more than a “two-way conversation” between the IITDirector and the Chairman alone ... decisionswere not taken at the Board.”

9. IIT KGP did not disclose thefollowing information related to Mr. Nadar’s business dealings with IIT KGP, assought by an RTI Application, dated 24/10/11,

(a) Kindly provide month/year,since HCL is operational in IIT Kharagpur. Provide month/year, since HCL wasprovided an IIT Telephone connection and IIT Office Space to have theirOffice/Unit functional in IIT Kharagpur? Kindly provide a copy each of thesupporting documents, e.g., MoU signed between IIT KGP and HCL.

(b) Kindly provide details – interms of item name, number of the items purchased and the amount, per yearbasis -- of all the purchases, since 2001 till now, of HCL products computers,modems, networking equipments, network installation, maintenance and otherperipherals, from HCL and/or HCL’s subsidiaries, like HCL Comnet, directly orindirectly through middlemen or other sources.

(c) Kindly provide a copy of eachof the contracts and/or Memorandum of Understanding signed between IIT KGP andHCL and/or HCL’s subsidiaries, like HCL Comnet etc., for network installation,maintenance etc., since 2001 till now. Provide the total amount paid, by IIT KGP,in each case.

(d) Kindly provide a copy each ofthose contracts and/or Memorandum of Understanding (not covered in Item No. 3above), in which the work was executed by HCL and/or HCL’s subsidiaries.Provide the total amount paid, by IIT KGP, in each case.

(e) Kindly provide details – interms of amount, purpose, and name of the other party - of all the financialcommitments made by IIT Kharagpur, which were approved by the Board ofGovernors and/or Finance committee, since Mr. Shiv Nadar joining, as the Chairman.

(f) Kindly provide the name ofall the members of the Computer Purchase … Committee, IIT Kharagpur. Along withthe period of their association with the Committee, from the period from 2001to 2007.

(g) Kindly provide theaudio/video recording and the hand-notes, as prepared by the Senate Secretaryof the Senate Proceedings of the following dates --- 23 Dec. 09, 28 May 10, 02July 10, 27 Dec. 10 and 17 Feb. 11.

(h) Kindly provide names of allthose HCL co-founders/executives/managers/ engineers, who are assisting, advisingand/or attending to Board of Governors files/work/meetings, in running theChairmanship of Board of Governors, IIT Kharagpur.

(i) Kindly provide completedetails of educational qualification and professional experience of Mr. ShivNadar, the current Chairman, Board of Governors, IIT Kharagpur.

10. The whistleblower Kumar is retaliated and tyrannized by theCorporate Tycoon Chairman and the Director duo. All the witnesses in the Chargesheet are those who had suppressed the information as Deemed Public informationOfficers (PIOs). Kumar’s suspensionis dictated out of vengeance for exposure of many academic / financial fraudsthrough application of RTI Act.

* * *

Abuse of power in suspension of IIT's Whistleblower Professor : Conspiracy of silence from Board of Governors

2012-01-03T21:09:00.002-05:00

IIT Kharagpur’sWhistleblower Professor ::

The Complete Facts of the Suspension Matter

Summary : Rajeev Kumar, a professor of computerscience (http://www.facweb.iitkgp.ernet.in/~rkumar/), emerged asan RTI activist and a Whistle-blower by applications of RTI Act. His tenaciousefforts of past 5 years, in exposing wrongdoings in IIT as well as in the conduct of JointEntrance Examination (JEE), have led to improvementsin the system. His efforts were lauded by the SupremeCourt, who called him an “unsung hero.”

Due to exposure of many academic/financial irregularities and outof vengeance for his RTI work, he was suspended by IIT Kharagpur’s Director onfrivolous and motivated charges. His unjustified suspension is continuing in 8^thmonth now, without following any rule of the law.

He is a victim of abuse of power. The disciplinary proceedingsare conducted by the Director, who is neither the appointing nor disciplinaryauthority. Director himself is indicted, by CBI, for major penalty. Calldetails of his cell phone are acquired by Registrar, whose threats to Kumar, areon records.

1. The suspension is continuing in its eight month, without anyreview for extension. None of the charges, against Kumar in the Charge Sheet, is of the nature of any embezzlement ormisappropriation of funds, misuse of official power, or negligence of duty. He is not custodian of any document/record; thequestion of tampering with any evidence or records does not arise. He cannotinfluence the witnesses (who all are IIT’s Top Administrators/ Officials).

2. He is not yet provided with the disciplinary proceeding procedure /rules.

3. The Board of Governors, who isthe Appointing as well as Disciplinary Authority, is maintaining completesilence. He didnot receive even a single response in respect of many of hisletters/representations from the Board of Governors. None of his requests for apersonal audience with the Chairman and/or Members of the Board, evoked anyresponse.

All the proceedings areconducted by the most challenged / exposed ‘tainted’ duo – the Director, Prof. D. Acharya(who is indicted and recommended for major penalty by CBI), and the Registrar(Officiating), Dr. T.K. Ghosal (who did not possess the minimal qualifications,was not found suitable for Registrar’s post), have been abusing power all-through.

Kumar’s conflicts of interest with Mr. Shiv Nadar, Chairman, Boardof Governors, are on records.

4. The Director Prof. DamodarAcharya, who is neither the appointing northe disciplinary authority, appointed, on 05/04/11, Mr. Ronojit Mitra (Retd. HCJudge) as the Chairman of One-man “Standing”Enquiry Committee, “to enquire intodisciplinary cases against the faculty members and officers of the Institute.”

The Inquiring Authority (IA), Mr. Mitra has no statutory sanctityto his appointment. It is established that the IA --- (a) is receivingdirections from Director and Registrar (Officiating), (b) is biased, and (c) isworking for gains.

The Inquiring Authority (IA), Mr. Mitra was found embroiled in another controversy. Mediaexposed Mr. Mitra, concurrently working in two roles, as a benefactor and an adjudicator, at the same time, in the same matter. Exposure of suchconflict of interest resulted in, Mr. Mitra, putting his papers.

5. Disciplinary proceedings arebeing conducted, without followingany rule, by the Director, Prof. Acharya, who having his owncomplicity, is the most challenged/exposed due to unearthing of severalirregularities/frauds involving himself in, e.g., (i) AICTE Scam, (ii) Coal-NetProject, (iii) Laptop Scam, (iv) Abuse of Senate proceedings, (v) Shielding thetainted IIT’s top administrators including Deans, Chief Vigilance Officer(CVO), senior professors, and the Registrar (Officiating), (vi) Continuation ofthe fake institute in spite of receiving warning from the President’s office,(vii) suppressing information all throughout, as sought by his 30 applications, inviolation of RTI Act 2005, and others. Prof. Acharya suppressed informationregarding admission of his son in IIT Kharagpur.

In spite of CBI recommended RDAfor major penalty against Prof. Acharya for his role in AICTE Scam, Prof. Acharya iscontinuing and discharging duties with his full powers. Similarly, Prof.Acharya ignored similar CBI recommendations for major/minor penalties againstother Deans/Senior Professors, involved in his Coal-Net Project.

Prof. Acharya misled CentralVigilance Commission (CVC) in complaints of irregularities and favoritism in all theappointments of the Registrar (Officiating), Dr. T.K. Ghosal. Prof. Acharyasubmitted factually wrong information under RTI Act.

6. IIT Administration is acquiringcall details of Kumar’s personal cell phone, un-authorizedly, withconnivance of local BSNL authorities. It is strongly apprehended that his Internet traffic is allegedlybeing intercepted for Email snooping etc., and thus IIT is having completee-surveillance of him, by those, whose threats to him, are on records.

7. There are numerous instances of Prof. Acharya abusing his power totyrannize Kumar, shielding his tainted administrators, and issuing threats to Kumar.

8. Additionally, there aredocuments, running in thousands of pages, establishing theirregularities/frauds/abuse of powers, as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.Many more bungling/frauds/abuses of power, would come to surface with theinformation, which has been suppressed by IIT Kharagpur, in violation of RTIAct.

9. All the charges in the Charge Sheet, againstKumar, are false, frivolous, malafide and motivated. The main charge against him is in accessingmedia for his personal interests and maligning theinstitution he serves, and created huge mental pressure on the faculty andadministrative staff. In contradiction, the Supreme Court termedKumar as “one of themany unsung heroes who helped in improving the system.”

Institute is maligned by IIT administrators turning a Nelson’s eyeto most of the academic/financial irregularities, which were/are easilyverifiable. Smoke hints at fire.

10. Kumar remained suspended, in violation of all rules of the law, and despite the fact that twoSupreme Court benches, independently, lauded his efforts:---

“ ... that he was interested inensuring that the Joint Entrance Examination is conducted in a transparent andfair manner so that meritorious students may not suffer.” (Excerpts from theOrder, in S.L.P. 23055/2010, dated 16/08/11)

“. . . their (Kumar and his son)attempts to bring in transparencyin the procedure by various RTI applications, and the debate generated by theseveral views of experts during the course of the writ proceedings, have helped in making the merit ranking processmore transparent and accurate ... IITs and the candidates who nowparticipate in the examinations must, to a certain extent, thank the appellants for their effort in bringing suchtransparency and accuracy in the ranking procedure ... the appellants will haveto be satisfied in being one of the many unsung heroes who helped in improvingthe system.” (Excerpts from the Judgment & Order, in S.L.P. 13495/2010, dated 11/10/11)

StatutoryProvisions in IIT Act 1961, IIT KGP’s Statutes 1962 (corrected upto 1999), & IIT Council’sResolutions:--

11. The Board of Governors is the Appointing Authority as per Section 25(a) of the Institute of Technology Act 1961. There is no section inthe said Act, which is for disciplinary action or disciplinary proceedings.

In accordance with Sub-Rule 15(9) of IIT KGP’s Statutes, “... Noorder imposing any of the penalties specified at (i) to (vii) above (ofSub-Rule 15(9)) shall be passed by any authority subordinate to that by whichhe was appointed ...,” the Board ofGovernors is the Disciplinary Authority.

Therefore, the Board ofGovernors is the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority.

12. In IIT Kharagpur’s Statutes, Sub-Rules 15(9) to 15(14), have provisions for disciplinary action. (MHRD CPIO’s letter, dated 12/10/11. The said sub-rules deal with suspension, subsistence allowance,penalty to be imposed and an appeal against the penalty.

The Statutes do not have anyother provisions,except the clauses 15(9) to 15(14), regarding disciplinary action/proceedings. (MHRDJoint Secretary (IITs)’s letter, dated 16/11/11).

Thesaid Statutes sub-rules, 15(9) to 15(14), do not contain even the phrases, e.g., Disciplinary Authority, Inquiring Authority,Presenting Officer, Review Committee etc. The said Statutes sub-rules do not have any procedure for conducting thedisciplinary proceedings, including any mention of review of thesuspension for either extending or revoking the suspension.

Therefore, IIT KGP’s Statutes donot have any Disciplinary Proceedings Procedure/Rule.

13. In the absence of anydisciplinary proceedings rule in IIT Kharagpur’s Statutes, the Central CivilServices (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, a.k.a. CCS (CCA) Rules are applicable, inaccordance with the 4^th IIT Council Meeting’s Resolution 1964 “... whenever no rules had been framed by anInstitute to deal with a particular matter, the Government of India Rules wouldbecome applicable.” The resolution was adopted by the then Board ofGovernors, IIT Kharagpur, in 1965.

Therefore, CCS (CCA) Rules areapplicable for conduct of disciplinary proceedings.

14. The 39^th IIT CouncilMeeting 2009 resolved that “A Standing Committee comprising three Chairmen,Board of Governors of IITs, would be constituted by the Chairman, IIT Councilto look into the grievances of students and employees of IITs.”

Therefore, a Standing/AppellateCommittee, to decide representations against IIT authorities, is in place.

Violation of Rules in Disciplinary Proceedings:--

15. On 05/04/11, the Director, who is neitherthe appointing nor disciplinary authority, appointed, Mr. Ronojit Mitra (Retd.HC Judge) as the Chairman of One-man “Standing”Enquiry Committee “to enquire intodisciplinary cases against the faculty members and officers of the Institute.”

16. On 13/05/11, Kumar was suspended by Director,without a show-cause.

17. The Charge Sheet, dated 16/05/11, was served on him. Charge Sheet is formatted almost in theformat as provided in CCS (CCA) Rules. YetCharge sheet did not have a mention of the disciplinary proceedings rules.Charge Sheet is not signed by the Disciplinary Authority.

18. None of charges, against Kumar,in the Charge Sheet, is of the nature ofany embezzlement or misappropriation of funds, misuse of official power, ornegligence of duty. He is not in custody of any record, the question oftampering with any evidence or records does not arise. He cannot influence thewitnesses (who all are Institute’s Top Administrators/Officials).

Therefore, none of the charges,against him, warrants his suspension. Yet he is suspended, ordered not to enter computer science department, thereby,he is prevented from his academic, research, ongoing project and educationalcontent development work. (AnnexureS-9: Page 24)

His Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are beingdestroyed/grabbed by IIT administration.

19. All the ten witnesses in theCharge Sheet are those who had deliberately suppressed the information, as soughtby him under RTI Act, and/or were exposed in other irregularities, due to hiswhistleblowing.

20. He is not yet provided with the Statutory Rules / Procedure bywhich the Disciplinary Proceedings, of him, are being conducted.

None of the Statutes sub-rules, e.g., 9(15), 15(9), 15(17) etc.,have anything about conduction of the disciplinary proceedings.

21. Suspension is continuing in 8^th month now without anyreview of the suspension for extension/revocation.

IIT has not submitted even the names/designation of the members ofthe Review Comm.

22. Enquiry proceedings have not started yet. The Inquiring Authority (IA) isnot yet appointed in accordance with the law of the land.

(a) The Inquiring Authority (IA), Mr. Ronojit Mitra (a Retd. HCJudge), was appointed by the Director, who is neither the appointing nor disciplinaryauthority, on 05/04/11, as the Chairman of One-man “Standing” Enquiry Committee, before his suspension.

Director used Sub-rule9(15) of IIT Kharagpur’s Statues, on 08/06/11, for appointing the IA and the Presenting Officer (PO). Whereas the said sub-rule states“The Director may at his discretion, constitute such Committees as he may consider appropriate,” isapplicable to formation of Committees, like Purchase Committee etc., inconnection with the functional duties of the Director, as enshrined in Rule 9of the Statutes.

The Sub-rule 9(15) of the Statutes is neither for appointing an Inquiring Authority (IA) nor a Presenting Officer for conduct of theDisciplinary Proceedings. This is also confirmed by the Joint Secretary (IITs),MHRD’s letter, dated 16/11/11, that IIT KGP’s Statutes do not have any otherprovisions, except the clauses 15(9) to 15(14), regarding disciplinary action /proceedings.

Such an Enquiry Committee cannot work as the Inquiring Authority(IA), as mandated in the Disciplinary Proceedings. Therefore, the appointment of the Inquiring Authority (IA), as above, fordisciplinary proceedings has no statutory sanctity.

(b) The Inquiring Authority (IA) is biased. The IA is interacting onregular basis with Director, Officiating Registrar and others.

Kumar requested the Inquiring Authority vide his letter, dated05/11/11, that “... the appointment of the Inquiring Authority/EnquiryCommittee is vitiated and legality of the aforesaid order which appears to bebad in law and ab initio void may beexamined and decided at the preliminary stage before initiating any enquiryproceedings.”

Instead of issuing a speaking order, the Inquiring Authority videhis letter, dated 08/11/11, dittoedthe same irrelevant Sub-Rules15(9) and 15(17), as quoted by the Registrar (Officiating), in his letter21/07/11.

(c) The Inquiring Authority (IA) isworking for gains.The Inquiring Authority has been paid a few lakhs of rupees, in many multiplesof Rs. 25,000/-, till now. For example, the IA was paid Rs. 75,000/- on 09/11/11. Though, the standard consolidated amount for a complete enquiry,as prescribed by DoPT, is Rs. 9,750/-.

(d) In view of the above facts, Kumar requested for, under RTI Act, thecopies of IA’s appointment, the details of all the meetings of the IA with IITKGP’s administrators / officials and the total amount of the honorarium paid to the IA. None isprovided yet; neither by IIT Kharagpur nor by Mr. Mitra, himself, in violationof RTI Act as well as against the prevailing standard norms. Needless to say, Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion.

(e) The Inquiring Authority (IA), Mr. Mitra was found embroiled in another controversy. Mediaexposed Mr. Mitra, concurrently working in two roles, as a benefactor and an adjudicator, at the same time, in the same matter. The matterrelates to land acquisition and distribution process of Rajarhat in West Bengal,for which Mr. Mitra was appointed as one man Commission Enquiry chief. However,due to media exposition that Mr. Mitra, himself, was a beneficiary of a plot ofland from the ‘special quota,’ Mr. Mitra had to put his papers due to conflictof interest.

23. IIT’s Order, dated 24/06/11,that “This (revoking the suspension) is, therefore, not within theirjurisdiction,” and IIT Order, dated 12/08/11, that “Your suspension order iscontinuing and shall continue until any further decision of the competentauthority,” are against the applicable laws of the land. IIT’s order, dated 12/08/11, that “CCS (CCA) Rules are not applicable,” is in defiance of IITCouncil’s resolution 1964.

24. Kumar’s appeals to the Chairman,IIT Council and Minister, Human Resource Development (HRD) was turned down onthe ground that IITs enjoy administrative autonomy and no intervention isfeasible. This is in defiance of IIT Council’s 2009 resolution that asteering/appellate committee of three IIT Chairmen was formed to look suchgrievances.

His appeal, dated 24/09/11, to IIT Council’s Steering/AppellateComm. did not evoke any response yet.

25. Kumar has strong apprehensionthat the Director is, mala fidely and maliciously, suppressing the true factsand submitting false, distorted and twisted facts before the Board ofGovernors, IIT Council, and Min. of Human Resource Development (MHRD).

26. IIT Kharagpur is spending manymillions of public exchequer on legal services of a battery of legaladvisors/advocates, in crushing and silencing me, and unleashing the wholeInstitutional might against me,an individual. IIT filed – (i) many caveats against him, and (ii) filedpetitions against CIC orders and obtained ex-partestay order.

Prayers

27. Urgent intervention is sought for reining in thevarious wings of the IIT KGP administration, which are just following the single-minded objective of victimizing andruining an individual faculty member, the whistleblower, who is only usingmechanisms as permitted by the Acts and Statutes of the Institute and the lawsof the land, to improve the system, as lauded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ofIndia. Prayers for:---

(a) Providing disciplinary proceedings rules as applicablein his case,

(b) Revoking the suspension order which is nomore valid now,

(c) Quashing the Charge Sheet which ismotivated. Else Enquiry/Disciplinary Proceedings may kindly beexpeditiously completed by appointing Independent Inquiring Authority and Spl.Disciplinary Authority under the supervision of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), in accordance with the rules andproviding natural justice,

(d) Re-locating him in IIT Delhi on IIT Council’s Faculty Exchange Program and thus protecting him from e-surveillance, professional and lifethreats of IIT KGP’s administrators,

(e) Publishing suo motu, on IIT KGP’s website, all the information which has been suppressed, in violation of RTIAct,

(f) Appointing a SpecialInvestigation Team (SIT), under thesupervision of CVC for investigating thenumerous frauds, irregularities and abuse of powers.

* * *

Conflictsof Interest &Abuse of Power

Afew samples as revealed from little information as received from IIT KGP underRTI Act and/or from the Affidavits, as submitted, in the Apex Court

(i) Wards of current Director (Prof.Acharya), DeputyDirector (Prof. A.K. Mazumdar), IIT KGP’s professors (on lien) as Director, IITPatna (Prof. A.K. Bhowmick), Director, IIT Bhubneshwar (Prof. M. Chakraborty),VC (Prof. R.V. Rajakumar), Director, NIT Rourkela (Prof. S.K. Sarangi), currentDean, Alumni (Prof. A. Patra), current Dean, CE (Prof. S. Sengupta), currentGATE Chairman (Prof. S. Sen), past JEE Chairman (Prof. V.K. Tewari), Chairman,Students’ Funds (Prof. V.R. Desai), ex GATE Chairman & Prof.-in-Charge(Exams) (Prof. B. Maiti), all three wards of ex Prof.-in-Charge (Exams.) (Prof.P.D. Srivastava), both wards of Chairman, CSE Purchase Comm. (Prof. S. Ghosh),ex CSE Head (Prof. A. Pal), ex BoG Member (Prof. S.K. Roy), OfficiatingRegistrar (Dr. T.K. Ghosal) and wards ofmany other current and past administrators studied and/or studying in IITKharagpur.

(ii) A ward of the past Director (Prof. S.K. Dube) was caught forimpersonating in JEE.

(iii) Spouses of many professors got PhD degrees in IIT KGP, and subsequentlybecame faculty of IIT KGP.

(iv) Many millions of rupees siphoned to the spouse of Deputy Director, Prof. A.K. Mazumdarfrom the projects of Deputy Director and/or his protégé.

(v) A CSE professor-spouse of a CSE-question paper setterof GATE was closely associated with a coaching Institute in Kolkata.

(vi) Alleged irregularities in M.Tech. 2010 admissions based on GATE 2010; informationhas been suppressed by Dean & Prof. P.K.J. Mohapatra, then GATE Chairman,Prof. B. Maiti and the then GATE 2010 Vice-Chairman, Prof. S.K. Barai.

(vii) Laptop purchase scam is due to approving of the exorbitant rates of laptop by thePurchase Comm. headed by Deputy Director & CSE professor, Prof. A.K.Mazumdar, who is continuing in the Purchase comm., possibly for the past manyyears; other members included CSE professors (Prof. I. Sengupta and Prof. R.Mall), Dean Alumni (Prof. A. Patra), Head CIC (Prof. P.K. Biswas and Dr D.K.Nanda) and Prof. C.S. Kumar.

SRIC Deans and Officials (Prof. P.P. Chakrabarti, Prof. S.Dasgupta, and others) and CSE Administrators (Prof. J. Mukhopadyay, Prof. S.Ghosh, and others) did not permit purchase of a laptop at hugely lower rate inspite of meeting best the specifications. Rather CSE professors, due to theircomplicity, condemned the whistleblower for his request for purchase ofsuch a laptop and are the witnesses in the motivated charge sheet against thewhistleblower.

(viii) Prof. Acharya turned Nelson’s Eye in spite of receiving warningfrom the President of India’s office regarding running of a fake institute, inwhich the then CVO, current CVO, current Officiating Registrar including pastIIT Directors were allegedly involved. The Officiating Registrar, Dr T.K.Ghosal, being a party, avoided his own name in the FIR lodged with the police.The CBI enquiry has yet to start the investigation.

(ix) IIT is defending the legal suit of CSE’s Prof. P.P. Chakrabarti and Prof. P.Dasgupta, in

court against misappropriationof IPRs. It is alleged that many millions of rupees of public fund was spent ondefending individuals’ legal suit. No permission of the Min. External Affairs(MEA) was taken.

(x) Dean & Prof. S.K. Som andProf.-in-charge (Examination) B. Maiti, condemned the whistleblower in lieu of their own proposalto form a Senate Sub-Committee with whistleblower, as one of the members, toprevent silent though undetected copying.

(xi) Dean & Prof. A. Basak condemned the whistleblower that he blows his whistle forhis self-interest to defame the institute. Prof. Basak issued memos to thewhistleblower on the matters, which were pending in the Hon’ble Courts.

(xii) Dean & Prof. P.K.J. Mohapatra charge sheeted the whistleblowerforirregularities in GATE 2010 for which he himself had suppressed theinformation.

(xiii) Dean & Prof. P.P. Chakrabarti charge sheeted the whistleblower for laptop scam in which he himself is the party. Prof. Chakrabarti wasrecommended for RDA leading to penalty, by CBI, in Coal-net project. Prof. Chakrabarti is an alleged party, inmisappropriation of IPRs matter, in

court.

* * *

Abuse of IIT Autonomy

Erosion of Academic Sanctity due to Conflicts of interests

1. This is a humble attempt to highlight a few tips of the iceberg, the emerging nexus amongst academic administrators of the premier technology institute, namely, IIT Kharagpur (KGP). As a result, the institution seems to have become a fiefdom of such elements in the absence of participative decision making, transparency and accountability.

2. Mr. Shiv Nadar’s HCL, a vendor/computer supplier, for profits, has been provided office space and a telephone connection in IIT Kharagpur. HCL is the only computer company which has been so favored. HCL has long been acquiring contracts for supply of computers, modems and other accessories, network installation/maintenance over many decades. Such contracts/deals have been in controversies.

3. Immediately after, Mr. Nadar’s joining as Chairman, IIT Kharagpur, it is alleged that a hundreds of millions deal, approved by Mr. Nadar, for himself, through BSNL. The deal is allegedly outsourced to HCL ComNet.

One may find an analogy in the CWG scam, the CAG had rapped MTNL for acting as a conduit for placement of a contract to HCL, on a back-to-back basis, after obtaining the contract on nomination basis. HCL is rapped by CAG in other dealings too, e.g., in TETRA sets which did not meet the specifications and were no more than the mobile phones.

4. IIT Kharagpur conferred an Honorary D.Sc. degree, in July 2010, on Mr. Shiv Nadar, a computer vendor, for profits.

Mr. Nadar owns two private institutions – SSN College and Shiv Nadar University. He is concurrently the Chairman, Board of Governors (BoG), IIT Kharagpur, in the same streams of Science, Engineering, Humanities & Management, thus inviting deep conflicts of interest.

There cannot be such a parallel elsewhere that a person, who is a vendor, for profit, in an Institute, is made the Chairman of the same Institute, and is also running two Private universities.

5. Most importantly, Mr. Shiv Nadar cannot be the Head, Board of Management of any of his own Universities, not having the requisite qualifications, as enshrined in the UGC Regulations, 2010. Yet he is the Chairman, Board of Governors of the world renowned centre of excellence, IIT Kharagpur.

6. The emerging such nexus between academic administrators and corporate tycoons was severely criticized by some of the vigilant non-IIT Councilors, in the IIT Council meeting, chaired by Mr. Kapil Sibal on 14/09/11. Instead of defending his presence, Mr. Shiv Nadar made a quick exit from the meeting, though Mr. Nadar is still continuing as Chairman, IIT Kharagpur.

IIT KGP did not disclose the educational qualification of Mr. Shiv Nadar in response to an RTI query though this should be publicly available under Section 4 of RTI Act; all other information related to Mr. Nadar’s business dealings with IIT KGP were suppressed.

7. The dividends, to Professor Acharya of (i) awarding a D.Sc. to a vendor/supplier, (ii) continuing huge business deals with HCL, and (iii) not disclosing the information specific to Mr. Nadar, under RTI Act, are visible from the very first month of Mr. Nadar’s taking over the Chairmanship.

(i) Mr. Nadar allowed Prof. Acharya to continue to work as the Director despite Prof. Acharya’s being indicted by CBI; CBI recommended major penalty against Prof. Acharya’s role in infamous AICTE scam. (It may be noted that other AICTE officials, for the similar offence, have been arrested and even terminated from the service.)

(ii) Prof. Acharya’s 400 million Coal-Net project was rapped by CAG for “the implementation of CoalNet remained unfruitful even after seven years and spending Rs.39.58 crore.” IIT KGP’s senior professors, including the current Director IIT Patna, Professor A.K. Bhowmick, and Prof. Acharya’s colleague Prof. R.N. Banerjee were recommended for major penalty while the current Dean, SRIC, Prof. P.P. Chakrabarti for minor penalty by CBI, for outsourcing the Coal-Net project to a private company M/s TCG, owned by an IIT alumnus.

No action had yet been taken by the Board of Governors mainly due to Prof. Acharya being the prime consultant of the project. Rather, all the charged professors have been promoted/awarded.

(iii) Prof. Acharya ignored the CVC complaint on JEE irregularities.

(iv) Prof. Acharya misled CVC by submitting factually wrong information, in reference to a CVC complaint of irregularities and favoritism in the appointments of Dr. T.K. Ghosal, the current Officiating Registrar, that “... in case of promotion to Asstt. Registrar and Deputy Registrar, educational qualifications need not be insisted.” Professor Acharya deliberately suppressed the facts that Dr Ghosal acquired the respective posts, in 1994 and 2004, by direct appointment, without having the mandatory minimal educational qualifications. Despite, Dr. Ghosal was not found qualified for the post of Registrar, Prof. Acharya appointed Dr. Ghosal as the Officiating Registrar, in the Pay Scale/Band of the Registrar, in violation of the laws of land.

(v) There are many other conflicts of interests and/or illegalities, in IIT KGP, involving top administrators; most such information has been suppressed under RTI queries.

8. IIT has not responded to even a single of a few scores of RTI applications in accordance with RTI Act, in the past 5 years. Most of the information, as sought in larger public interest, should mandatory be publicly available under Section 4 of RTI Act, yet none was ever supplied in accordance with law.

9. The whistleblower Kumar is retaliated and tyrannized by the Corporate Tycoon Chairman and the Director duo. All the witnesses in the Charge sheet are those who had suppressed the information as Deemed Public information Officers (PIOs). Kumar’s suspension is dictated out of vengeance for exposure of many academic / financial frauds through application of RTI Act. All the charges in the Charge Sheet are false, frivolous, malafide and motivated

10. Kumar appraised the new Chairman Mr. Nadar with the irregularities/frauds on 17/04/11 and 22/04/11. Instead of any investigation, Mr. Nadar, approved Kumar’s suspension in his very first BoG meeting on 22 April 2011. The following are on records:--

(i) Kumar did not recommend accreditation for postgraduate (CSE) program of Mr. Nadar’ SSN College of Engineering. Later, the college was accredited by discarding experts’ report. Though, such cases are under CBI scanner in AICTE Scam, it is not understood why Nadar’s SSN College is not under investigation by CBI.

Instead, SSN College is being considered for a deemed Univ. status, in haste, when the matter is pending in the Apex Court. The information, under RTI Act, is suppressed by National Board of Accreditation (NBA), whose current Chairman, Prof. B.C. Mazumdar, has conflicts of interest.

(ii) Kumar questioned the nomination of IIT’s Dean Prof. P.K.J. Mohpatra and Ex-Dean Prof. R.N. Datta’s nomination for the BoG Membership in the Senate on 23 Dec. 2009.

(iii) Kumar questioned the wisdom of awarding of a DSc degree to IIT KGP’s vendor/supplier, Mr. Nadar, in the Senate on 28 May 2010.

(iv) Kumar discarded Acharya Comm.’s Alternative to JEE, in the Senate on 02 July 2010. His rejection led to a nation-wide debate on JEE Reforms, which ultimately led to formation of another JEE Reform Comm. with Dr. Ramasamy.

11. Kumar has been threatened by IIT’s top administrators. He had been receiving ‘friendly’ advice from many for stopping his RTI activism. The Officiating Registrar, Dr. T.K. Ghosal is acquiring call details of Kumar’s personal cell phone, un-authorizedly from BSNL. Kumar’s Internet traffic is allegedly being intercepted for Email snooping etc. IIT is having complete e-surveillance on the connections and activities of Kumar, leading to enhanced life threats.

12. There are other cases of appointing other corporate tycoons as IIT Chairmen. Another HCL tycoon, Mr. Ajay Chowdhury is the Chairman, IIT Hyderabad. It was shocking to know that Mr. Chowdhury (being one of the Chiefs of the HCL in CWG scam), was nominated recently for the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), by none other than a Secretary of a Govt. of India Department.

(i) Two HCL executives are currently holding IIT Chairmen posts.

(ii) The current Chairman, IIT Roorkee, Mr. Analjit Singh is running a life insurance/health-care business empire. Mr. Ajay Piramal is the Chairman, IIT Indore.

(iii) In the past, Prof. S.C. Saxena was appointed Director IIT Roorkee during JayPee Group’s tycoon, Mr. Jai Prakash Gaur,’s tenure as the Chairman, IIT Roorkee. Later, Prof. S.C. Saxena joined Jay-Pee Group’s JIITU, Noida, which is facing heat on deemed univ. status.

13. IIT KGP, under the stewardship, of Mr. Shiv Nadar, is concentrating on strengthening on IIT’s legal arm, PR image building, HR management, etc., which are essentially the priority areas of the corporate, and not of an academic administration.

14. IIT’s autonomy model, is essentially constrained to a two-way communication between Chairman and Director, as stated in the premier PanIIT Conclave by the then IIT Kharagpur’s Chairman, Mr. B. Muthuraman (Vice President, Tata Sons) that “IIT Board of Governors were becoming redundant with no more than a “two-way conversation” between the IIT Director and the Chairman alone.”

It appears that Mr. Nadar outsourced his BoG responsibilities to HCL co-founder (Mr. Arjun Malhotra), HCL President (Mr. Saurav Adhikari), HCL General Manager (Mr. Pankaj Mahajan), the Director (Prof. D. Acharya) and Fox Mandal Little Solicitors, who are running the Institute.

15. With such a tycoon heading the autonomous IIT, a new nexus of corporate - academic administrators, is emerging, which is being used at the cost of academic sanctity, as shown by the case study of IIT Kharagpur.

Mr. Nadar, who cannot be the Head (Chairman, Board of Management) of any of his own private universities, is running a publicly funded world renowned, the IIT Kharagpur. Mr. Nadar is protecting those who are tainted, and is brutalizing/tyrannizing the one who stands for academic sanctity.

16. Request to:--

(i) suo-motu disclosure of all the information, in larger public interest, under RTI Act,

(ii) all the tainted IIT KGP administrators to proceed on leave till completion of investigations,

(iii) the corporate tycoon to tender resignation for abusing power for his gains,

(iv) investigate acquiring/sharing of e-surveillance information of the whistleblower (call details, email snooping etc.), and

(v) expeditious completion of all the pending CBI enquiries, including fake institute, Coal-Net, AICTE scams, etc..

Without loosing sight for the IIT System and in particular, the IIT KGP, it may be appreciated to:--

(vi) investigate the irregularities/scams by a team of people of impeccable integrity, and

(vii) review IITs autonomy model, which is proved to be abused.

* * *

CBSE, in true defiance of CIC Order, to release AIEEE Answer keys

2012-01-03T21:08:00.001-05:00

It is “indirect” defiance to meaningfulcompliance of the recent Supreme Court’s directions which instructed “allexamining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer books.”For multiple choice questions, disclosure of ORS, without the answer-keys, isof no value.

Answer-keys should be published before theevaluation so that a stakeholder can check the correctness of the answer keys.

Answer keys along with question should be publiclyavailable with the examination portals so that the aspirants can use theminstead of depending on coaching institutes.

It may be noted that CBSE is the designated agencyto conduct the combined ‘Single’ medical entrance (NEET-UG) examination.

Times of

India

:: 05 November 2011

On CIC order, CBSE reveals engg exam’s answer keys

Akshaya Mukul, TNN | Jan.. 05, 2012

NEW DELHI: After initially refusing to part with theanswer keys of All India Engineering Entrance Examination ( AIEEE) of 2010 and2011, Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) - under order from CentralInformation Commission (CIC) - has finally given them, but without the questionpapers.

In its September 30, 2011,order, CIC had asked CBSE to give answer keys in line with decisions of theCommission and the courts in this regard. RTI applicant Rajeev Kumar had askedfor answer keys along with question papers and model answers. But the demandfor model answers was dropped after CBSE said court cases are underway.

In2007, CIC's order had resulted in IITs disclosing answer keys, question papersetc of JEE, 2006, to Kumar. In August, 2011, even the Supreme Court said thatall examining bodies should permit examinees to have inspection of their answerbooks. Apart from IIT-JEE, examination bodies of state governments have starteddisclosing answer keys along with question papers.

Kumar has written to CBSE stating thatwithout question booklet, the supplied answer keys are of no value. At timeseven wrong questions have been asked - as happened in case of JEE in the lasttwo years.

Ithas been nearly 20 months since the first RTI was filed in this regard.Initially, CBSE had refused to supply answer keys, stating that the"larger public interest does not warrant disclosure of suchinformation". When Kumar appealed against the order, the appellateauthority said "as a policy matter of CBSE, the answer-keys cannot besupplied". Then, CBSE took the plea that possibly records were destroyed.But it was pointed out that destruction plea of CBSE is wrong since RTI seekingdisclosure of answer keys was submitted to CIC on June 15 - only a few weeksafter the results were declared. However, CBSE has been regularly divulgingdetails of All India Pre-Medical Entrance Test (AIPMT).

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/On-CIC-order-CBSE-reveals-engg-exams-answer-keys/articleshow/11368453.cms

Hindustan Times :: 05 January 2012

CBSE will share AIEEE answer key, but not question paper

Chetan Sharma | Hindustan Times

New Delhi, January 04, 2012 : The CentralBoard of Secondary Education (CBSE) has disclosed answer keys of the All IndiaEngineering Entrance Test (AIEEE) after much reluctance but not the questionspapers which would have helped the students fare in the examination. The CBSEconducts

India

’s largestmulti-choice question type paper (AIEEE) for admission in various engineeringcolleges across

India

. But, the boardhad not been disclosing the answer sheets or information to help students knowmore about the examination.

The CentralInformation Commission (CIC) in September this year asked the board to providethe information about answer sheets of the students to the applicant RajivKumar of Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, but without names and rollnumber of the candidates.

On November 22, the CBSE provided the answer keysto Kumar, a year after it claimed that providing answer keys was against theboard’s policy and was not in “larger public interest”. However, the board’sanother wing that conducts All

India

Pre-Medical Test (AIPMT) provided the answer keyswithout charging a penny.

The board alsocited the CIC’s order of April 2007 saying that a citizen cannot seekdisclosure of the evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act. The board,however, failed to mention subsequent order by Information CommissionerShailesh Gandhi, which over-ruled the earlier order and said that the answersheets should be provided in the large public interest.

Most of the otherexamination bodies such as Indian Institute of Technology, Indian Institutes ofManagement and state education boards provide the answer keys along withquestions papers on the day of the examination.

“The CBSE is nowproviding answer keys which would be of no use to students who appeared inAIEEE. They (answer keys) should be disclosed on the day of examination so thatthe students could find out how they have fared,” Kumar, who had filed a publicinterest litigation in Delhi high courtregarding transparency in AIEEE said.

The CBSE has,however, cited huge data base as a reason for not been able provide the copy ofanswer sheets on its website. In future, it was willing to disclose answer keyswith question papers on AIEEE website

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/CBSE-will-share-AIEEE-answer-key-but-not-question-paper/Article1-791170.aspx

Pioneer :: 04 January 2012

CSE flouts SC order, gives useless AIEEE answer keys

PNS | New Delhi

CBSE has failed to comply with theorders of Chief Information Commissioner and directives of Supreme Court todisclose answer-keys of All India Engineering Entrance Examinations (AIEEE) andmake these declarations public.

Based on the RTI query of an applicant, CBSE came out with AIEEE2010 and 2011 answer-keys but without questions. It thus rendered the answerkeys useless. Further, the disclosures came after 20 months of theexaminations, prompting the coaching institutes to do brisk business.

RTI applicant Rajeev Kumar pointed out that the enactment of RTIAct 2005 coupled with many CIC orders call for the disclosure of answer-keysand question papers to maintain transparency in the conduct of examination.

Most of the examination bodies,including IIT-JEE, State boards, engineering/medical examination bodies as aresult disclose publicly the answer-keys of multiple choice questions after theexaminations. With such disclosures, a student can assess the correct score.Besides, such disclosures help in detecting errors, which are then correctedbefore evaluation of the scripts.

Response to the RTI application filed by Kumar revealed that theCBSE which conducts the AIEEE, the largest examination of multiple-choicequestion type in the country, neither discloses the answer-keys voluntarily norunder RTI requests.

In fact, on a Chief Information Commissioner order fordisclosure of the answer keys of AIEEE 2010, CBSE took the pretext ofdisclosing the answer-keys alone (without accompanying the question papers),and only privately to the RTI applicant after a delay of 20 months.

While the Chief Information Commissioner had passedorders in this regard on September 30 last year, the Supreme Court had inAugust last year directed “all the examining bodies to permit examinees to haveinspection of their answer books”.

http://dailypioneer.com/nation/32372-cbse-fails-to-disclose-aieee-answer-keys-despite-sc-order.html

Tribune :: 28 October 2011

Despite apex court order, CBSE not keen to share AIEEE answer keys

Says it’s not inpublic interest, wants Rs. 10 lakh for info

Aditi Tandon | TNS

New Delhi, October 27: At a time when the Right toInformation Act is being actively debated and concerns voiced over publicauthorities’ resistance towards voluntary disclosure of information under thelaw, a curious case of CBSE’s refusal to part with AIEEE (All-India EngineeringEntrance Exam)-related data has come to light.

Interestingly, the board had no objectionslast year when the same RTI applicant (as the one in the instant case) hadrequested it for answer keys of the all-India PMT 2010. The information wassupplied promptly. But when it came to disclosing the same information - answerkeys - of AIEEE 2010, the board started behaving secretively.

This,notwithstanding recent directions of the Supreme Court that instructed “allexamining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer books.”The CBSE conveniently excused itself from the law of the land and continues todecline AIEEE 2010 answer keys on grounds that “larger public interest doesn’twarrant disclosure of such information”.

It may be noted that disclosure of answerscripts of multiple choice questions (as mandated by the apex court) is of novalue unless answer keys are also disclosed along with.

In the AIEEE 2010 case, the board has beenrefusing information from the word go. The case file, which last came up forhearing this September 30 before the CIC, reveals that at one point the CBSEasked the applicant to shell out Rs 10 lakh for the supply of answer keys and marksdata of the students who took AIEEE 2010, the largest entrance test held in

India

. The RTI Act on the other hand prescribesonly Rs 50 fee when the information is sought in an electronic format on a CD(as in this case).

In yet another plea to refuse theinformation sought, the CBSE said before the CIC that it had destroyed theanswer keys in question. When asked to say the same thing on oath in theaffidavit, the board didn’t come forward. “If answer keys have been destroyedas per the schedule for retention and preservation of documents, the CBSE’sCentral Public Information Officer should file an affidavit,” the CIC ordered.

During the course of the appeals before theCentral Pubic Information Officer and later the CIC, the board cited a thirdplea to deny information to the applicant, a professor at IIT-Kharagpur. TheCBSE said the information sought (answer keys) was exempt under Clause 8(1)(j)of the Act that debarred public authorities from sharing data that would entaildisclosure of identity of others and thereby violate the privacy norm.

The CIC, however, noted on September 30 thatthe applicant was not interested in names or roll numbers of candidates. “TheCBSE is directed to provide the information after withholding roll numbersetc,” Deepak Sandhu, Central Information Commissioner ruled, rejecting CBSE’sclaim for Rs 10 lakh for giving details.

Forthe record, the instant RTI request was filed on June 15 last, a few days afterthe AIEEE was held. As a policy, no institution - be it the IITs, state boardsor the CBSE, can destroy question papers or answer keys that fast.

Unlike answer-scripts that can still bedisposed of immediately, answer keys and question papers are required to bepreserved for sufficiently longer periods.

Voluntary disclosures

The CBSE’s refusal in the instant case onlyvalidates the concern the PM had recently voiced at the CIC’s annual RTIconvention where he said the public authorities had a long way to go for makingvoluntary disclosure of information under Section 4 of the RTI Act. If thepublic authorities disclose on their websites what they can under the Act, therush of RTI applications would be automatically curtailed, NAC member Aruna Roysays

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20111028/nation.htm#4

Times of

India

:: 15 October 2011

Jolt to CBSE over flip-flop on RTI Act

Akshaya Mukul, TNN | Oct. 15, 2011

NEW DELHI: Central Board of Secondary Education's(CBSE) double standard on the RTI Act has caused it a big embarrassment.Central Information Commission has directed CBSE to either divulge answer keys of the All

India

Engineering Entrance Examination (AIEE) or submit an affidavit, if records havebeen destroyed.

Toa separate query about marks data of each AIEEE candidate, CBSE had demanded Rs10 lakh from an RTI applicant. But CIC has ordered CBSE to supply free marksdata of each candidate while withholding the student's roll number and name.

CBSEhad refused to supply answer keys stating that "the larger public interest does not warrant disclosure of suchinformation". When the applicant, Rajeev Kumar of IIT-Kharagpur,appealed against the order, the appellate authority said "as a policymatter of CBSE, the answer-keys cannot be supplied".

The question of destruction of answer keyswas taken up by CIC as CBSE pleaded that possibly records were destroyed.

However,sources said, CBSE's submission is misleading or tantamount to destruction ofthe information as the plea seeking disclosure of answer-keys was submitted on 15 June, 2010 - only afew weeks after the results were declared.

As a policy matter, question papers andanswer-keys are never destroyed, but are kept in records for a sufficientlylonger time.

CBSErefusal to give answer keys and marks data of AIEEE is contrary to its ownstand on divulging details of All India Pre-Medical Entrance Test (AIPMT). In the past, CBSE has given all the detailsof AIPMT exam.

AIEEE,the largest engineering examination conducted by CBSE, neither disclosed theanswer keys voluntarily nor under an RTI plea.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Jolt-to-CBSE-over-flip-flop-on-RTI-Act/articleshow/10361287.cms

IITs in CIC : CIC losing relevance, Blooper on site leaves CIC red-faced

2012-01-01T21:35:00.000-05:00

Times of

India

:: 22 January 2012

With 26k cases due, CIC losing relevance

Backlog leadingto 14 Month’s wait per plea

Himanshu Dhavan, TNN | Jan. 22, 2012

NEW DELHI: With an addition of nearly 2,500complaints every month, the Central Information Commission (CIC),which has an astounding 26,049 pending cases is well on its way to becomingredundant. The reason: the CIC disposed off 22,414 cases last year, which meansthat there is a pendency of 14 months for every appeal and complaintmaking the information received by the applicant outdated and often useless.

Commission chief SatyanandaMishra expressed concern saying, "If the pendency continuesincreasing, the waiting period will also increase. We are very concerned andwill have to think of radical ways to tackle the problem. One of the issuesthat we will discuss is `summary disposal' of cases through just speakingorders to save time."

The CIC has six informationcommissioners, including its chief, though it has a sanctioned strength of 10.One of the first tasks undertaken by Mishra on taking over was to write to thegovernment asking for more commissioners keeping in view the large number ofcases coming to the CIC. However, there has been little progress in ramping upthe strength so far.

RTI activists are concerned andhave been vocal in their disapproval of the long waiting time. One prominentRTI activist, who did not wish to be named, said, "The hearing for a casewhere I had sought information took place three months ago and in fact only theformal order had to be issued since I was given the impression that thedecision had been taken. However, I have still not heard from the office of theinformation commissioner.

Prof Rajeev Kumar, formerlywith IIT-Kharagpur, said that he had sought information on IIT-Madras in2010 and only managed to get hearing in September, 2011. "I received theorder after three months in December, 2011 and even then the institute gave meonly part of the information. It was of no use. Despite the long delay the no penaltywas charged. CIC has become infructuous," Kumar said.

Sources said that some cases as old as2006 were still pending before the Commission with no action being taken.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/With-26k-cases-due-CIC-losing-relevance/articleshow/11583870.cms

Times of

India

:: 02 January 2012

Blooper on site leaves CIC red-faced :: Tardy, Inaccurate CIC underfire

InformationWatchdog Hears Five RTI Appeals On IITs Only After A Year

Akshay Mukul, TNN | Jan. 02, 2012

NEW DELHI: The Central Information Commission's(CIC) inordinate delay has come to light in the five appeals filed betweenOctober and December 2010, which were heard together on September 30 last year.While the order in one appeal was given on the day of hearing, for the otherfour appeals the order was dispatched to appellant only in December-end.

The four orders, however, still showSeptember 30 as the date when it was passed. On the CIC website, none of thefive orders is listed in the name of IIT respondents, but the HRD ministry'sdepartment of school education and literacy. The ministry was not even party tothe case. CIC's website lists the case as Rajeev Kumar vs. department of schooleducation and literacy.

The first appeal related to information in all cases of admissionsin IIT-Kanpur of the wards of faculty members/scientific officers since 2000. TheCIC ordered IIT-Kanpur to provide the information.

The second appeal was about information regarding number ofstudents who have answered correctly, wrongly and did not attempt each questionof papers I and II of JEE, 2010. The CIC told IIT-Madras that conductedJEE in 2010 to provide the records just the way IIT-Kanpur did for JEE, 2011.

Kumar's third appeal sought details of IIT-Kharagpur facultymembers involved in consultancy along with the honorarium paid to them. TheCIC asked IIT-Kharagpur to give the information. It said in case IIT-Kharagpurfeels information is scattered and cannot be easily gathered without committinghuge resources, then supporting affidavit should be filed in the commission.

Kumar had also asked IIT-Madras to give names and details of allcandidates, who appeared in both papers of JEE, 2010, in mathematics, physicsand chemistry along with two ways of evaluation that was undertaken as acorrective measure. IIT-Madras told CIC that names of candidates, parents' nameare available on the website but that of SC/ST categorization is not uploaded. CICasked IIT-Madras to file an affidavit to the commission that no intermediatedata is generated.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Blooper-on-site-leaves-CIC-red-faced/articleshow/11333410.cms

Conflict of Interests : Inquiry chief himself a benefactor under ‘special quota’

2011-12-24T21:28:00.000-05:00

Hindustan Times :: 28 December 2011 :: Kolkata Ed.

Rajarhat probe panel chief puts in his papers

Yes, it's indeed true that I got the landthrough the special HIDCO quota :: Ranojit Kumar Mitra Retired justice, CalcuttaHC

Soumen Datta | Hindustan Times | Dec. 28, 2011

Kolkata: Ranojit Kumar Mitra, retiredjustice of Calcutta highcourt, who was supposed to probe the Rajarhat land acquisition and distributionscam, expressed his inability to accept the appointment as chairman of thecommission of inquiry following an HT expose that he was a beneficiary of thediscretionary quota of the former Left regime.

Sources in the chief secretary's officesaid Mitra had sent a letter to chief secretary Samar Ghosh, expressing hisinability to accept the government's request to head the probe.

HT had reported on December 25 thatMitra was allotted land by former housing minister Gautam Deb, who gave him a4.485 cottah plot (Action Area I, Plot No. AC 89) under the `special quota' ofthe HIDCO chairman. “You'll come to know about the resignation in a day ortwo,“ Mitra told HT on Tuesday morning without elaborating on the reason.

“Today, I won't say anything on his notaccepting the appointment,“ chief secretary Samar Ghosh told HT on Tuesdayevening at the state secretariat.

State law and judicial minister Malay Ghatak said that, in thesecircumstances, the retired justice should resign from the post of chairman ofthe commission of inquiry into land acquisition and distribution at Rajarhatduring the previous Left Front government's rule.

Mitra admitted that he had, indeed, received the plot. “Yes, it’strue that I got the land through the special HIDCO quota,” Mitra had told HT onSaturday. “I’m not sure… I have to find out,” was his answer when asked ifthere was any conflict of interests in his two roles as a benefactor andadjudicator in the alleged scam.

The scam behind land acquisition anddistribution at Rajarhat during Left Front rule turned into a hot controversyduring the run-up to the 2011 assembly elections, when Mamata widely campaignedagainst the Left Front’s plan of setting up the satellite township project byacquiring land from farmers.

After coming to power, she reorganisedHIDCO and abolished the practice of quota altogether. Mamata, in both of heravataars as opposition leader and chief minister, has been critical of the landacquisition and distribution process at Rajarhat, labelling HIDCO as“unethical, immoral and illegal”.

After HT’s report, legal experts agreedthat there was an apparent conflict of interests which would come in the way ofa credible probe. Significantly, Mitra, himself, had not sent the acceptanceletter to the chief secretary.

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/PUBLICATIONS/HT/HKL/2011/12/28/ArticleHtmls/Rajarhat-probe-panel-chief-puts-in-his-papers-28122011001035.shtml?Mode=1

Hindustan Times :: 25 December 2011 :: Kolkata Ed.

Conflict of interest as Inquiry Commission chief himself got land under‘special quota’

Controversy :: Rajarhat probe panel undercloud

Soumen Datta | Hindustan Times | Dec. 24, 2011

Kolkata:The commission of inquiry set up by the state government to probe allegedirregularities in land acquisition and distribution in Rajarhat by the formerLeft Front regime has landed itself in a controversy since retired Calcuttahigh court judge Justice Ranojit Kumar Mitra, nominated to head the panel, hashimself got a plot of land from the ‘special quota’ of erstwhile HIDCO chairmanand housing minister Gautam Deb.

Accordingto HIDCO documents in possession of HT, Justice Mitra was allotted a plot of4.485 cottah (Action Area I, Plot No. AC 89) under the ‘special quota’ of HIDCOchairman.

Thenotification of the commission of inquiry was issued on December 13. MamataBanerjee, in both her avatars as an Opposition leader and chief minister, hasbeen critical of the land acquisition and distribution process in Rajarhat,labelling all sorts of HIDCO as “unethical, immoral and illegal”.

On Friday, Justice Mitraadmitted having got the plot but did not respond to HT’s query whether he sawany apparent conflict of interest in his case. “Yes, it is true that I have gotland through special quota of HIDCO,” Mitra told HT. But when asked whetherthere was any conflict of interest in his two roles as a benefactor andadjudicator, he said, “I am not sure. I have to find out.”

HIDCOchairman and managing director Debashish Sen also refused to comment on theissue. “We want to expose what happened with land acquisition and distributionin Rajarhat. I hope the person who has accepted the land would himself speak onthis issue,” said senior member of the state cabinet Subrata Mukherjee.

Afterassuming charge, Mamata reorganised HIDCO and abolished the practice of quotaaltogether. The chief minister also nominated a bureaucrat — urban developmentsecretary Debashish Sen — to head HIDCO, one of the driving motives of whichwas to eliminate the tendency of politicians to bestow favours.

Lawminister Malay Ghatak, too, was unaware about the land allotment to the retiredjustice nominated to head the commission of inquiry. “I will look into thematter,” was his response.

However, lawyers pointed out itwas common practice for sitting judges to step aside from adjudicating onmatters in which they may have an interest. “If there is a conflict ofinterest, the concerned adjudicator should resign on principles of fairness,”advocate Shekhar Basu told HT.

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/PUBLICATIONS/HT/HKL/2011/12/25/ArticleHtmls/ht-SPECIAL-Rajarhat-probe-panel-under-cloud-25122011001059.shtml?Mode=1

TheDirector, Prof. Damodar Acharya, who is neither the Appointing Authority nor theDisciplinary Authority, appointed Justice (Retd.) Ronojit Mitra as a Chairman,One-Man Standing Enquiry Committee “toenquire into the disciplinary cases against the faculty members and officers ofthe institute.”

Director Prof. Acharya and Registrar, Dr. T.K.Ghosal, are having conflicts of interest with Justice (Retd.) Ronojit Mitra.

IIT KGP Board of Governors is not taking any actionagainst Director Prof. Acharya, who is indicted for major penalty, by CBI, ininfamous AICTE scam.

Prof. Acharya misled CVC on alleged irregularitiesin the appointment of Dr. T.K. Ghosal, who did neither possess minimumqualification nor was found suitable by the Selection Committee for the post ofRegistrar, as revealed under an RTI query.

Times of

India

:: 05 November 2011

Bias slur on IIT-Kharagpur in handling probe cases

Akshay Mukul, TNN | Nov. 05, 2011

NEW DELHI: IIT-Kharagpur seems to havecome up with innovative ways, when it comes to dealing with suspendedemployees. Flouting the norm that different enquiry officers should deal witheach case of suspension, the premier institute has a one-member standingcommittee of Justice (retired) Ronojit KMitra, who enquires into all disciplinary cases raising serious questionsabout bias.

Mitra, appointed in April, enquired into disciplinary case againstformer registrar D Gunasekaran, faculty member A K Ghosh and suspendedprofessor of computer science Rajeev Kumar. Each hearing costs the institute Rs9,750 that grows several times since Mitra handled three cases till recently -each with multiple hearings. IIT-Kharagpur registrar T K Ghosal refused tocomment. "We do not comment when enquiry is going on," he said.

The HRD ministry has turned ablind eye to the way Kumar's suspension is being handled by the institute. EvenSupreme Court's laudatory remarks about Kumar have not helped matters, with theministry refusing to change its views. The apex court said efforts of Kumar "helped in making themerit ranking process more transparent and accurate", and "IITs andthe JEE candidates who now participate in the examinations must, to a certainextent, thank the appellants for their effort in bringing such transparency andaccuracy in the ranking procedure".

HRD minister Kapil Sibal, who isalso chairperson of IIT Council, refused to intervene. Kumar's representationto Sibal was turned down on the grounds that IITs enjoy administrative autonomyand no intervention is feasible. However, the ministry has made an exception for IIT-Kharagpurdirector Damodar Acharya and is refusing to take action against him in theAICTE scam, despite CBI's recommendation.

Sibal's hand-off approach isagainst IIT Council's own resolution of 2009, in which an appellate/steeringcommittee of chairpersons of IITs board of governors of Delhi, Roorkee andGuwahati was formed to look into the grievances of students and employees ofinstitutes. RPAggarwal, former education secretary and current chairperson, board ofgovernors, IIT Delhi, is the convener of the appellate/steering committee.

While Sibal did not refer Kumar's representation to the appellatecommittee, the suspended employee's separate plea to the panel has also not metwith any response.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Bias-slur-on-IIT-Kharagpur-in-handling-probe-cases/articleshow/10613723.cms

MHRD Notice to IIT Kgp Director in AICTE Scam, on CBI recommendation

2011-12-23T22:01:00.000-05:00

Such a delayed move is possibly aimed at giving a clean chit toProf. Acharya and then re-appointing him the Director, IIT Kgp for a secondterm.

Times of

India

:: 24 December 2011

HRD notice to IIT-Kgp boss in AICTE scam

Akshay Mukul, TNN | Dec. 24, 2011

NEW DELHI: The HRD ministry has soughtexplanation from IIT-Kharagpur director Damodar Acharya after ignoring CBIsrecommendation of regular departmental action against him for about eightmonths.

http://lite.epaper.timesofindia.com/getpage.aspx?edlabel=TOIH&pubLabel=TOI&pageid=17&mydateHid=24-12-2011

Times of

India

/ Economic Times :: 05 October 2011

TOI : Rot starts at top: Indicted IIT chiefs go scot-free

ET : CBI indicted IIT chiefs have gone scot-free

Akshay Mukul, TNN | Oct. 05, 2011

The CBI found Acharya's involvement in the All

India

The agency had also recommended penalty against two otherIIT-Kharagpur professors - R N Banerjee and P P Chakraborti - for theirinvolvement in the Coalnet project.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rot-starts-at-top-Indicted-IIT-chiefs-go-scot-free/articleshow/10237363.cms

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/10241835.cms

Sameoffence, favoring the same college, by each of the two former AICTE Chairmen –Yadav and Acharya.

Same CBI hadconducted enquiry and recommended the same sanction.

The twoAccused are treated differently.

One formerAICTE Chairman Yadav had gone to jail, was prosecuted and terminated fromservice. While the other former AICTE Chairman, Acharya is continuing asDirector IIT KGP.

Timesof

India

:: 22 July 2011

CBI indicts IIT-Kgp chief in technical institutes scam

Akshay Mukul, TNN | July 22, 2011

NEW DELHI: Widening its net in the AllIndia Council for Technical Education (AICTE) scam, the CBI has found theinvolvement of its former chairperson Damodar Acharya, who is now the directorof IIT-Kharagpur.

In an investigation report sent to the HRD ministry in May, theagency also found involvement of five others in different cases of illegalapproval to technical institutes. The CBI has named R A Yadav, former chairman,AICTE; Y Venkateswara Rao, director, National Institute of Technology,Warangal; M S Palanichamy, former vice-chancellor, Tamil Nadu Open University;M Afshar Alam, faculty of management and information technology, Jamia HamdardUniversity and M Altaf Khan of department of commerce and business studies,Jamia Millia Islamia. CBI sources saidthe HRD ministry is yet to intimate action it has taken against theseofficials.

In case of Acharya, who was the chairperson of AICTE from May 16, 2005, to June 30, 2007, CBI's investigation shows thatin 2005-06 a new system was started for extension of approval to technicalinstitutes. It included submitting compliance report along with mandatorydisclosures by the institutes for extension of approval. The compliance reportwas to be processed through an appraisal panel of three experts and based onthat, the chairperson was to take decision on the extension of approval.

The case, involving Acharya, relates to Padmavathi Engineering College, which is run by PachaiammalEducational Trust. In 2006-07, when the institute submitted to AICTE theproposal for extension of approval, an appraisal panel recommended to reducethe intake from 180 to 90 seats as it found 42.5% shortage in faculty members.Even the principal was not a post-graduate, and teachers were not paid AICTEpay scales.

CBI said: Acharya,being the chairman of AICTE, did not consider the recommendations of theappraisal committee and took a decision to maintain status quo. He ignored therecommendations of the said committee and granted the extension of approval to Padmavathi College of Engineering.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/CBI-indicts-IIT-Kgp-chief-in-technical-institutes-scam/articleshow/9317714.cms

Times of

India

:: 27 April 2011

IIT-Kharagpur director made accused in AICTE scam

Akshay Mukul, TNN | Apr 27, 2011

NEW DELHI: CBI has made DamodarAcharya, director of IIT, Kharagpur, as an accused in the scam involvingthe All India Council for Technical Education. Acharya was the chairpersonof AICTE when approval to many existing technical institutions was granted.

In its latest report to HRDministry, CBI has also recommended regular departmental action for majorpenalty for the lapses committed by Acharya. An employee can be dismissed underthe regular departmental action, sources said. It remains to be seen whataction HRD ministry takes against Acharya. So far the ministry has been goingas per CBI recommendation and has taken action against many AICTE officials.

Acharya's involvement relates to the extension given to PadmavathyCollege of Engineering (PCE) for 2006-07. CBI said AICTE had appointed athree-member appraisal committee to assess PCE. The assessment was based on theinformation furnished by the institute as well as the visit by the committee.Considering faculty shortage in the institute, the appraisal committee hadreduced the intake from 180 to 90 seats. Acharya, CBI said, "did notconsider the recommendations of the appraisal committee and took a decision tomaintain status quo". Accordingly, the institute was given extension ofapproval.

Highlighting the role ofAcharya, CBI said, "He did not consider the recommendation of theappraisal committee contravening the conditions, guidelines, norms andregulations of the AICTE which would clearly establish his officialmisconduct." CBI also pointed out that Acharya "did not bother toissue directions for rectifying the defects pointed out by the appraisalcommittee. Therefore, he failed to protect the interests of the AICTE tomaintain uniform standards in institutions of higher education and prevent thecommercialization of technical education."

For 2007-08 also, the institute was given a year's extensiondespite information about shortage of faculty and the staff not being paidsalaries as per AICTE pay-scales.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/IIT-Kharagpur-director-made-accused-in-AICTE-scam/articleshow/8095422.cms

Times of

India

:: 21 October 2009

CBI gets sanction to prosecute AICTE ex-officials

Akshay Mukul, TNN | Oct. 21, 2009

NEW DELHI: HRD minister Kapil Sibal hasgiven sanction to CBI to prosecute former AICTE chairman RA Yadav and formermember secretary K Narayan Rao in another case of corruption relating toPadmavathy College of Engineering in Tamil Nadu.

Since both Yadav and Rao arejoint secretary level officers, CBI had to seek the minister's permission. Itis after conducting a preliminary enquiry that the CBI seeks clearance from thecentral government to file a regular case. Sources said the permission wassought on Monday and the minister gave the clearance the same day.

Sources said Yadav, Rao and former AICTE advisor HC Raiperiodically extended approval given to Padmavathy College of Engineering despitethe fact that the institution did not have necessary infrastructure to run thecourses. "Approval was being extended despite a local verification by Anna University based on which the college wasbanned," the source said. While seeking Sibal's approval, CBI had told theministry that it found incriminating evidence of corruption on the part ofYadav and Rao. Sources said extension was purely based on alleged pecuniarybenefits to Yadav.

Yadav and Rao are already facing CBI prosecution after a surprisecheck on the regional office of AICTE in July caught Rao while allegedly takingbribe red-handed. Rao is alleged to have demanded Rs 20 lakh from the owner ofan engineering college in Andhra Pradesh for approving his college. In Yadav'scase, was found that he along with other officials were allegedly demandingmoney for processing the case of increase in intake of seats of the engineeringcollege being managed by the complainant in the case.

However, the slew of cases has not deterred Yadav and Rao from seekingpolitical help. Immediately after CBI got into action, MPs cutting across partylines came out in defence of the duo alleging that they were beingunnecessarily harassed.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-10-21/india/28069532_1_k-narayan-rao-aicte-advisor-hc-rai-cbi

Telegraph :: 22 August 2011

Graft glare on IIT Bbsr director scam

BASANT KUMAR MOHANTY

New Delhi, Aug. 21: The HRD ministry is likely to frame chargesagainst IIT Bhubaneswar director Madhusudan Chakraborty for alleged involvementin irregularities related to equipment purchases worth Rs 2.5 crore last year.

Thecharges could be framed this month by the ministry’s vigilance wing on thebasis of the lapses detected by the CBI in the purchases.

The planned action against Chakraborty, whois already under a cloud over appointment of underqualified teachers at thethree-year-old IIT, could culminate in a possible suspension or removal. Theprocess could take several months during which he will remain in the post.

Theinstitute had purchased the equipment from a single company bypassing thetender process in transactions cleared by Chakraborty, the central probe agencysaid in a report to the ministry in June this year after a surprise checkconducted in November last year.

“The CBI has found irregularities in thepurchase of equipment. Certain complaints have been lodged before the CentralVigilance Commission on the same issue. The ministry is likely to frame chargesagainst him (Chakraborty) for departmental action,” a source said.

Underrules applicable to central organisations such as the IITs, tenders have to beinvited through newspaper ads for procuring items worth more than Rs 25 lakh.

Foritems costing up to Rs 25 lakh, tender enquiries have to be made. In cases ofproprietary items — products with only one manufacturer — the tender processcan be bypassed but the company in question must give a certificate saying theequipment fits the tag.

TheCBI did not find such certificates from M/S AIMIL, from which the equipment wasbought. It was Chakraborty’s job to check that such documents were in place.Soil testing, groundpenetrating radar sensor and devices used in seismicresearch were among the items purchased.

Seniorfaculty members S.C. Dutta, D. Pasla, S. Haldarand P. Bhunian had finalised the list of equipment but insisted they should bepurchased after getting such certificates.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110822/jsp/nation/story_14407862.jsp

Telegraph :: 11 August 2011

CBI waits for Bengal nod on IIT case

BASANT KUMAR MOHANTY

New Delhi, Aug.10: The CBI has refused to take up the probe into a fake institute that wasbeing run on the IIT Kharagpur campus on the ground that the Bengalgovernment has to first transfer the case that state police are nowinvestigating.

“The state police will have to agree totransfer the case to the CBI. We have asked the state government to expeditethe process of investigation by the state police or agree to transfer the caseto the CBI. The state government has not replied,” a government source told TheTelegraph.

The human resource ministry, which wroteto the state government last month asking it to speed up the policeinvestigation or hand over the probe to the central agency, had referred thematter to the CBI in January. The CBI wrote back to the ministry in June,saying the state police were already investigating the case and it could takeup the probe only after the state government agreed.

The ministry had earlier decided to setup a two-member committee comprising IIT Indore director Pradeep Mathur and IITGandhinagar director Sudhir Jain to probe the matter.

However, the decision was criticised assome felt the committee would not be able to do a fair job as the scamallegedly involves former directors and senior officials of IIT Kharagpur. Theministry then decided to refer the case to the CBI.

IIT Kharagpur authorities had filed anFIR with local police after the matter came to light. Duped students of thefake institute, Institution of Electrical Engineering, had also complained tothe Central Vigilance Commission, saying the IEE was being run with theconnivance of some faculty members and IIT officials.

The students alleged that A.K. Ghosh, former chief vigilanceofficer of IIT Kharagpur, was the president of the IEE, which is not recognisedby technical education regulator AICTE.

The IIT has suspended Ghosh and hasfiled an FIR against him in a local police station. An internal committee foundGhosh was involved in the running of the fake institute, which was closed downlast year.

The institute, which functioned in thestaff quarters on the campus for about four years, had been offering diplomacourses in electrical engineering and was managed by J.K. Tiwary, who allegedlylured students into taking admission by claiming it was a branch of IIT Kharagpur.Another senior faculty member, J.C. Biswas, was the IEE vice-president.

The IEE students have also alleged that former IIT Kharagpurdirectors K.L. Chopta and S.K. Dube supported the running of the institute, aclaim denied by both.

It has also been alleged that the current officiating registrar,T.K. Ghosal, issued an IIT Kharagpur employee identity card to Tiwary in 2006when he was deputy registrar.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110811/jsp/nation/story_14366119.jsp

Statesman Editorial :: 12 August 2011

The illegality within IIT

THE formality of the transfer of a case froma state government to the CBI is of relatively lesser moment than theastonishing fact of a campus within a campus. A fake institute styled theInstitution of Electrical Engineering (IEE) was being run for quite a whilewithin the holy of holies ~ the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. Itwas ostensibly engaged in the award of diplomas; neither the institution, notto mention the diplomas, were recognised by the All India Council for TechnicalEducation. It is difficult to believe that the ITT authorities were not privyto this illegality. Yet it remained for the duped students to spill the beansand complain to the Central Vigilance Commission that it was being run bycertain members of the faculty and IIT officials.

What occasions surprise is the sluggishnature of the investigation being conducted by the West Bengal police. The government was spurred toaction after an alert by the Union HRD ministry last month. There has been noprogress either by the Centre or the state, let alone a serious effort toidentify those responsible for the emergence of a dubious on-campus entity.Even the Centre’s proposal on a probe by the Directors of other IITs hasn’tmaterialised lest it cause a flutter in the IIT roost. Actually, an HRD inquirymight have made some headway in a central institution; the state betrays atangential interest in the Union HRD ministry’s centres of higher learning ifits attitude to the serial fiascoes at Visva-Bharati is anything to go by.Going by present indications, a CBI enquiry is unlikely any time soon; theagency will not step in unless the state transfers the case.

Any investigation by the CBI or the statemust get to the bottom of the matter. How did the unrecognised Institution ofElectrical Engineering come up within the Kharagpur campus? That it has nowbeen closed doesn’t render the investigation redundant. That the suspendedpresident of IEE was the former chief vigilance officer of IIT points to adeeper malaise than what has been acknowledged thus far. It isn’t as though anenquiry is being made into a closed institution. Central to the controversy isthe fact that it existed for as long as it did and was apparently patronised bystudents seeking diplomas. There is no denying that the image of IIT Kharagpurhas been blemished.

http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=379656:edits&catid=38:editorial