DRDO Hqrs Not Having Capabilities to Manage Fake/ Unrecognized Diploma /Degree Business – VI

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect to  your RTI reply RTI/01/2091/P/2013/0387 dated 27^th December 2013 regarding  on acquiring higher qualification by DRDO officials at their own. As per details provide by DRDO RTI cell the following DRDO official acquired their qualification from Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University. As per Orissa High Court order in respect of W.P.(c) No. 16718 of 2013 1 & Misc. Case No. 15613 of 2013 Tirthabasi Pradhan vs Union of India on 6 September, 2013

Stated that  “ genuineness of his B.Tech degree is doubted. The Diploma awarded by JRN University, through Distance Education mode has not been approved by UGC, AICTE and DEC as required by the meeting dated 04.06.2009 held at 11 A.M. in the Board Room of IGNOU Maidan Garhri.  

The petitioner failed to produce any letter of approval issued by the Joint Committee jointly signed by the Secretary, UGC, Member Secretary AICTE and Director DEC in respect of courses offered by JRN University, Rajasthan.

Refer to DOP&T O.M. No. 1/2/89 – Estt. (Pay-I) dated 9-4-1999 para -3

“The qualifications meriting grant of incentive should be recognised by the All India Council for Technical Education, Department of Electronics, Deemed University, University or recognised by the Government”

In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to get any interim protection and accordingly the misc. case is dismissed.

1. Sh Rakesh Kumar Soni, STA ‘C’   acquired B.Tech (Chemical Engineering)  from  JRN University, Rajasthan, date of grant 13 July 2012 Sno.79 of RTI reply No RTI/01/2091/P/2013 dated 27 Dec 2013.
2. Sh Shankar K N, STA ‘C’ LRDE acquired B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) in 12 Jan 2013 from  JRN University, Rajasthan.
3. Sh Amit Chawla, STA ‘B’ LASTEC acquired B.Tech (Electro & Comm Engineering) in 16 August 2012 from  JRN University, Rajasthan (Till date Sh Amit Chawla has not submit any proof of appearing B.Tech like any Fee receipt, any date sheet, any leave records for appearing examination etc.)

In respect of above please provide following information.

1. The certified copy of verification before approving lump sum grant of incentive to above officials.
2. Certified copy of recommendation for lump sum grant of incentive received by competent authority from their respective establishments.

Note : Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1)

Registration Number            MODEF/R/2014/60251

Orissa High Court

Tirthabasi Pradhan vs Union of India on 6 September, 2013

W.P.(c) No. 16718 of 2013 1

Misc. Case No. 15613 of 2013

Para

In the case of Parshavnath Charitable Trust & Ors. Vs. AICTE & Ors., (2013) 3 SCC 385, the petitioner is not entitled to any interim relief. Assuming that the petitioner is eligible to take admission in M.Tech, such admission cannot be granted after the cutoff date, i.e., after 15.08.2013. But fact remains that the petitioner is not eligible to take admission in M.Tech. course as genuineness of his B.Tech degree is doubted. The Diploma awarded by JRN University, through Distance Education mode has not been approved by UGC, AICTE and DEC as required by the meeting dated 04.06.2009 held at 11 A.M. in the Board Room of IGNOU Maidan Garhri. The AICTE has already published a Public Notice for existing students/prospective students pursuing/wanting to pursue the education through Distance Mode under AICTE, UGC and DEC, thereby advising to check the approval by Joint Committee of DEC, UGC and AICTE in the Web Portal of AICTE. If the institution has not been approved by the Joint Committee, the qualifications acquired by the students of such institution are not approved by the AICTE. It is the public policy of the AICTE not to recognize such Certificates acquired by the students as per the aforesaid Notification.

The Deemed University concerned in the present case does not have the recognition from joint Committee consisting of UGC, AICTE and DEC after 2005. Moreover, the JRN University does not have AICTE approval for the programmes/courses offered by it in technical/professional subjects which are exclusively covered under the AICTE Act, 1987. Unless the programmes/courses are approved by AICTE, the BPUT cannot accept such courses and allow the students to enter into the BPUT system to prosecute their higher studies. Apparently, the courses and programmes taken by the student from JRN University is incomplete and the degrees/diplomas/ certificates issued by such University are all defective and illegal.

12 (b) Secondly, the minutes of the meeting on the issue of recognition of diploma awarded by JRN University by Distance Education Council held on 4.6.2009, inter alia, contains the following :

“The AICTE nominee informed that they have not recognized the diploma in engineering course offered by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeetha. Further the AICTE nominee informed the members that AICTE does not accord recognition to technical programmes offered through distance mode and till date they have got (sic) given any approval to start any technical programme through distance education. AICTE Council has recommended not to start any programme through distance education except MBA, MCA and DBM.”

The minutes of the meeting further contains the relevant Clause of the MoU signed between UGC, AICTE and DEC as under :

” Based on the recommendations of Joint

Committee, the letter of approval may be issued by the Joint Committee. The letter should explicitly state. This has the approval of UGC/AICTE and DEC. The letter should be jointly signed by Secretary, UGC Member Secretary, AICTE and Director, DEC.”

The petitioner failed to produce any letter of approval issued by the Joint Committee jointly signed by the Secretary, UGC, Member Secretary AICTE and Director DEC in respect of courses offered by JRN University, Rajasthan.

9. Law is well-settled that education is national wealth. Merit and excellence assume special significance in the context of professional studies. Selection for admission is necessarily to be merit based. Merit of the student is sole criteria and there is no substitution of it.

10. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to get any interim protection and accordingly the misc. case is dismissed.

B.N. Mahapatra,J.

ssd