Topic Identifier

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 33 to 37 of 37

Thread: Explain JEE cut-offs, CIC warns IIT

  1. #33
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Re: Explain JEE cut-offs, CIC warns IIT

    As reported in on 07 April 2010:

    IIT rejoinder and reply on ‘threat’

    Dr T.K. Ghosal, registrar (officiating) with the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, has sent a rejoinder to a news report carried in The Telegraph on March 29.

    The news report had said that at a Central Information Commission (CIC) hearing of RTI appeals by an IIT professor, Rajeev Kumar, who exposed discrepancies in the 2006 admissions, Dr Ghosal warned Prof. Kumar against challenging the IITs, telling him that “by doing this you are cutting your hand”.

    The report had added that the CIC, in an unusual move, had recorded the comment in its order and stated that Prof. Kumar saw the comment as a threat and that Dr Ghosal had said that it was not intended as one.

    Dr Ghosal’s rejoinder sent to The Telegraph states:

    Dear Sir,

    We express our anguish over the reporting of misleading and baseless information published in your esteemed Newspaper on 29th March 2010 Edition under the heading “Whistleblower warned over JEE case. Threat to IIT teacher”….

    The fact of the case is that the complainant Mr. Rajeev Kumar filed a complaint in the Central Information Commission. The Commission allowed the appeal on the basis of a letter dated 02-02-2010 from the Public Information Officer, IIT Kharagpur. The decision is available in the Website of Central Information Commission (decision No. CC/SG/C/2010/000001/6934 Adjunct dated 19.03.2010). It is evident that the decision does not carry a single word of JEE-2006. Hence, we feel that the stated news item is not a proper representation and has unnecessarily cast aspersion on our Institute.

    As regards your reporting on JEE 2006 admission, your attention is invited to the judgment of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kalidas Mukherjee, High Court Calcutta in regard to case F.M.A. No. 1424 of 2008 in the matter of Shri Sanchit Bansal, son of Shri Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs. the Joint Admission Board (JAB) and others. The Hon’ble Court through their final judgment has disposed the said appeal. The same was reported to many leading Newspapers and also included in AIR. That being the position… (the) report has given a different news to confuse the readers of The Telegraph. As such I am directed to contradict the same.

    We hope that considering the gravity of the situation, you would be kind enough to publish this Rejoinder or publish the same in The Telegraph as a letter to the Editor.

    Our Special Correspondent replies:

    The news item factually reported what transpired at a hearing of the CIC on March 19, 2010, as recorded on the same day in an order of the CIC.

    In his letter, Dr T.K. Ghosal does not at any point challenge the factual contents of the news report. Instead, he has cited unrelated facts and claimed the report is “misleading and baseless”.

    The CIC order explicitly says that Prof. Kumar pointed out to the commission that Dr Ghosal had during the discussions told Prof. Kumar “that by doing this you are cutting your hand”. Dr Ghosal’s warning is specifically mentioned at the end of paragraph 3 of page 2 of the CIC order. This was perceived by Prof. Kumar as a threat — and the CIC viewed this as significant enough to be recorded in its order.

    The Telegraph report had given the versions of both Prof. Kumar and Dr Ghosal.

    The news report states that Dr Ghosal warned Prof. Kumar in relation to the latter challenging the IITs. It nowhere states that the March 19 hearing in particular was on the 2006 JEE or that the order mentioned the admissions fiasco that year.

    The report correctly states that Prof. Kumar revealed the discrepancies in the 2006 JEE that denied 994 deserving candidates seats at the IITs. The March 19 hearing pertained to information that Prof. Kumar had sought and which the IIT was denying him — in other words, Prof. Kumar was challenging the IIT.

    While the March 19 order did not mention the year 2006, the information sought by Prof. Kumar is intrinsically associated with his fight to bring justice to the victims of the JEE 2006 scandal.

    Dr Ghosal’s rejoinder misleadingly cites the high court dismissal of a petition filed by Prof. Kumar in the 2006 case even though that high court order is not related to the facts reported in The Telegraph report.

    The high court order in the case very clearly explains that Prof. Kumar’s petition was dismissed on a technicality.

    The parliamentary standing committee on human resource development too has observed that the technicality on which the high court dismissed Prof. Kumar’s petition does not exonerate the IIT from answering questions about the 2006 JEE discrepancies.

    Twitter: @cjkarira

  2. #34

    IIT- JEE issue

    News Report on The Telegraph :The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Frontpage | IIT rejoinder and reply on ‘threat’

    Club Building (Near Post Office)
    Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
    Tel: +91-11-26161796
    Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000001/6934Adjunct
    Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000001
    Complainant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar
    B-26, IIT Campus
    Kharagpur, West Bengal-721302
    Respondent : Mr. A. Patra
    Public Information Officer &
    Assistant Registrar (Audit)
    Indian Institute of Technology
    Kahragpur, West Bengal-721 302
    The complainant had filed a RTI application with the PIO, IIT , Kharagpur on 04/10/2009 asking for certain information. On not having received the information within the mandated time of 30 days, he filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission.
    On this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the PIO, IIT, Kharagpur on 01/01/2010 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
    Commission’s Order dated 22/02/2010:
    The Commission allowed the Appeal on the basis of a letter dated 02/02/2010 from the PIO, IIT, Kharagpur to the Commission. It was stated therein that information has been provided to the Complainant vide letter(s) dated 06/01/2010 and 01/02/2010. Further the PIO had given a written explanation for the delay in providing the information. However, the explanation did not appear reasonable to the Commission.
    Facts leading to the show cause hearing on 19/03/2010:
    The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appeared that both the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appeared that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action of Section 20 (1) and (2).A show cause notice was therefore issued to the PIO vide Commission’s decision dated 22/02/2010 with a direction to serve the same to such person(s) who are responsible for this delay in providing the information, and direct them to be present before the Commission along with the respondents.
    Relevant Facts During the Show Cause Hearing on 19/03/2010:
    The following were present.
    Complainant: Mr. Rajeev Kumar;
    Respondent: Mr. A. Patra, Public Information Officer & Assistant Registrar (Audit);
    Mr. T. K. Mukherjee, OSD; Mr. T. K. Ghosal, Registrar and FAA;
    The RTI application was received by the PIO on 06/10/2009. PIO states that he sought the assistance of Dr. V. C. Vivekanand, Dean & Professor of Law, Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act on 07/10/2009. He sent a reminder on 16/11/2009 to Dr. V. C. Vivekanand to provide the information. The PIO states that on 23/11/2009 Prof. S. Motilal forwarded an Email with a request to cross check the data with Account Section but the PIO could not open the attachment with the email. After this Dean Prof. V. C. Vivekananad send the information on 06/01/2010 which was forwarded to the Complainant. This information did not provide the actual honorarium paid to the people which has been originally sought in the RTI Application thus partial
    information was provided. On 15/01/2010since the Complainant complained about receiving incomplete information the PIO requested account section to provide the information and gave a reminder on 01/02/2010 to the Assistant Registrar Accounts. On 01/02/2010 the amount of honorarium paid to those who worked in RGSOIPL was provided to Mr. Rajiv Kumar of 48 pages. However, Prof. Rajiv Kumar points out that this list does no tally with the list earlier provided to him in terms of names. In the first list Justice Pratap Ray and Mr. Anjan Sen have been mentioned but there names do not occurred in the list showing the honorarium paid. There is a very large number of names to whom honorarium has been paid which do not occur in the first list. The PIO is asked to explain these anomalies and give the complete list to the Complainant before 30 March 2010.
    From the statement of the PIO it appears that Prof. V. C. Vivekanand was guilty of not giving the information within the time of 30 days, since his assistance was sought under Section 5(4) by the PIO. Further the PIO knew that the amount of honorarium paid was not supplied to him and that he should have sought the assistance of the Account Department atleast on 06/01/2010 when he forwarded the list to the Complainant. However, he sought the assistance of the accounts department on 15/01/2010. Information from a computerized accounts system about amount paid to people whose names are known should be available within minutes. Yet it is claimed that the Accounts Department took 15 days and a reminder from the PIO to give this information. The Commission recommends to the Director of IIT, Kharagpur to train people within IIT who are dealing with RTI and setup some proper system where people understand what information is to be given and how can be obtained.
    Prof. Rajiv Kumar pointed out to the Commission that Dr. T. K. Ghosal has during the discussions told Prof. Rajiv Kumar “that by doing this you are cutting your hand”. Prof. Rajiv Kumar feels that this is a threat. Dr. Ghosal states that it was not intended as a threat.
    Adjunct Decision:
    The PIO is Director to explain these anomalies and give the complete list to the Complainant before 30 March 2010
    The Director of IIT, Kharagpur is recommended to train people within IIT who are dealing with RTI and setup some proper system where people understand what information is to be given and how can be obtained.
    The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO Prof. V. C. Vivekanand within 30 days as required by the law.
    From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the deemed PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
    Prof. V. C. Vivekanand will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 19 April 2010 at 4.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant. If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
    Shailesh Gandhi
    Information Commissioner
    19 March 2010
    (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SP)
    CC: To, Prof. V. C. Vivekanand through Mr. A. Patra, Public Information Officer & Assistant Registrar (Audit)
    Last edited by dexter; 08-04-10 at 05:06 PM.

  3. #35
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Re: Explain JEE cut-offs, CIC warns IIT

    As reported by Akshaya Mukul in on 26 August 2010:
    SC notice to HRD ministry, IITs on JEE irregularities - India - The Times of India

    SC notice to HRD ministry, IITs on JEE irregularities

    NEW DELHI: Admitting a Special Leave Petition seeking reforms in the Joint Entrance Examination conducted for admission to 15 IITs and other institutes, Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to HRD ministry, IIT Council -- the apex body managing IITs -- and Joint Admission Board, which conducts IIT-JEE, for alleged irregularities and largescale bungling in the exam.

    The SLP, filed by IIT-Kharagpur professor Rajeev Kumar, challenged the June 2010 order of Delhi High Court which had dismissed a PIL by Kumar on the ground that he had no locus standi to challenge the validity of JEE. The SLP sought directions from the apex court for comprehensive reforms in the conduct of JEE to enhance transparency and accountability.

    The petition requested the SC to make specific directions for probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into irregularities, tampering, fraud and abuse in the conduct of JEEs. It also sought constitution of a committee of independent experts to formulate a single examination for entrance to engineering institutions rather than having a committee of four IIT directors.

    The petition said JAB should be asked to release model answers immediately after the examination was over. It sought additional safeguards to prevent tampering of the optical response sheets, not to repeat same set of persons as question setters or JEE administrators for more then two years and also to ensure strict vigilance, publish status of vacant seats and filled-in seats on day-to-day basis during admission counselling, set conceptual & analytical questions, and evaluation based on differential grading in lieu of binary grading.

    Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, senior counsel Prashant Bhushan told the apex court that the PIL in Delhi HC was a comprehensive one based on extensive research and analysis of past five years' JEE data by Kumar. The data, Bhushan said, was otherwise kept secret by IITs. The data came to light as under RTI Act, IITs were forced to reveal various aspects of JEE results. In fact, many queries under RTI were answered only after the Central Information Commission passed strict orders.

    Bhushan also said Kumar had established many irregularities and discrepancies which had come into the IIT-JEE examination system in the past 50 years but were kept a secret. It was also argued that detailed analysis of previous JEE data had revealed many discrepancies and irregularities, like ad hocism in cut-off determination, unattended errors in question settings/evaluation, tampering/shredding of optical response sheet in undue haste, promoting coaching institutes, lacking transparency and accountability, selecting IIT administrators' wards in some IITs, closed admission counselling resulting in irregularities in admissions and seats lying vacant, zero accountability for attending to apparent errors and poor ethics in JEE administration.

    The petitioner also pointed out that JEE 2010 was marred by different kinds of errors in question papers, like ambiguous instructions, wrongly printed instructions, mismatch of subject headings in question papers and optical response sheet and printing errors.
    Twitter: @cjkarira

  4. #36
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Re: Explain JEE cut-offs, CIC warns IIT

    As reported by Akshaya Mukul in on 22 October 2010:
    As JEE head, tainted prof tweaked cutoffs - The Times of India

    As JEE head, tainted prof tweaked cutoffs

    NEW DELHI: Running a fake institute from within the IIT-Kharagpur campus is not the only way in which Amit Kumar Ghosh of the aerospace department made his name.

    From 2006 to 2008, Ghosh was chairman of Joint Entrance Examination, Kharagpur, when the maximum number of bunglings took place. Documents with TOI show that he not only gave false statements but on his charge, material related to JEE was destroyed despite clear rules that it be retained for a year.

    Ironically, he remained the chief vigiliance officer of IIT, Kharagpur till recently.

    On August 24, 2006, much after students had taken admission in IITs, as individual marks of candidates were released, it was found that students scoring just 154 marks were declared qualified though students with 279 marks were disqualified. If this was not enough, Ghosh's response to a student who had not qualified despite scoring 231 marks (104 in physics, 75 in maths and 52 in chemistry) was that "he has not satisfied the marks eligibility criteria laid down for individual subjects as well as the aggregate marks in JEE 2006".

    This was a factually wrong statement as it was revealed in May 2007 that the cutoffs for maths, physics, chemistry and aggregate were 37, 48, 55 and 154 respectively for general category students, and the candidate in question scored much higher marks. But the procedure for cutoff calculation revealed by IITs showed that for maths, physics and chemistry, it should have been 7, 4 and 6 respectively instead of official figure of 37, 48 and 55.

    Four different cutoff procedures submitted by IITs could not come to the stated official cutoffs. It also came to light that 994 candidates were deprived of admission due to discrepancy in calculation of cutoffs.

    Even as pressure was mounting on IIT directors, chairpersons of board of governors and council members about irregularities, Ghosh sought an approval on October 31, 2006 for shredding of JEE specific material, including ORS scripts. The IIT statute clearly states that JEE papers will not be destroyed for a year.

    Ghosh got approval from a committee that included Madhusudan Chakraborty, then deputy director (now director, IIT-Bhubneshwar) and Sishir Kumar Dube, then director IIT, Kharagpur. Records with TOI reveal that while Chakraborty's son was admitted to IIT-Kharagpur under the board of governors' quota, Dube's son was caught for impersonating in JEE.

    Records also show that JEE material was finally shredded on December 18, 2006. But the very next day, principal information officer of IIT-Kharagpur, while responding to an RTI query on supplying question papers, said the Joint Admission Board 2006 had decided not to give away the question paper of JEE 2006 to the candidates. He did not reveal that all JEE material of 2006 was already destroyed a day earlier. As a result of destruction of material, IIT till date has not produced the original JEE cut-off procedure for verification.

    Repeated phone calls at Ghosh's residence went unattended.
    Twitter: @cjkarira

  5. #37
    C J Karira
    Blog Entries
    Rep Power

    Re: Explain JEE cut-offs, CIC warns IIT

    As reported by Chetan Chauhan in on 12 Oct 2011:

    Top court calls IIT whistleblower prof an unsung hero

    Suspended IIT professor, Rajiv Kumar, has been described by the Supreme Court as an “unsung hero” who helped make the entrance examination to premier institutions more transparent. IIT-Kharagpur had on May 13, 2011 suspended Kumar on charges of damaging the institute’s reputation by

    constantly filing RTI pleas and then appealing to the Central Information Commission (CIC) against the institute’s view.
    Kumar’s five-year tirade started when his son failed to clear the 2006 IIT-JEE. He used the RTI Act to get information on the IIT-JEE selection process and claimed his son, who now works with Microsoft, had been wronged owing to the selection criteria.

    The SC on Tuesday, after listening to IITs, dismissed his claim observing it does not have technical know-how to challenge the IIT experts, but said Kumar should be satisfied with being one of the many “unsung heroes who helped improve the system”.

    SC judges RV Raveendran and AK Patnaik said: “IITs and the candidates, who now appear for the examinations must, to a certain extent, thank the appellants (Kumar) for their effort to bring such transparency ... in the ranking procedure.”

    Kumar’s RTI application triggered a storm, with the CIC asking the IITs to give the information sought.

    Kumar obtained data of all JEEs since 2006 and analysed them for claiming discrepancies in the examination system.
    Twitter: @cjkarira

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook Apple App Store Google Play for Android