Tag Archives: AICTE

Drdo

SC Suspends All Engineering Degrees Obtained Between 2001 & 2005 Through Distance Courses From 3 Universities; Those After 2005 Cancelled

1 Comment

BY: APOORVA MANDHANI NOVEMBER 3, 2017 4:05 PM LIVE LAW. IN
The Supreme Court has suspended the Engineering degrees granted between 2001 and 2005 to all graduates through distance learning by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Rajasthan (JRN), Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Rajasthan (IASE) and Allahabad(AAI)

The Bench comprising Justice A.K. Goel and Justice U.U. Lalit ruled that the degrees would remain suspended till the students pass an examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC. It further added that “every single advantage” on the basis of the degree would also stand suspended till then.
For this purpose, the Court has directed the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) to conduct appropriate written and practical tests for the concerned students. The entire expenditure for conducting the tests has been directed to be recovered from the concerned Universities.
The students would get only two chances to pass the exam, failing which their degrees will stand recalled and cancelled. Further, in case the students do not wish to appear in such tests, the Court directed refund of the money deposited by them towards tuition and other charges. The students have been given time till 15 January to exercise the option to take the tests.
The degrees obtained after the year 2005, for courses through distance learning have, however, been cancelled. The Court clarified, “Any benefit which a candidate has secured as a result of such degrees in Engineering in the nature of promotion or advancement in career shall also stand recalled. However, if any monetary benefit was derived by such candidates that monetary benefit or advantage will not be recovered by the concerned departments or employers.”
The entire amount paid by such students has been directed to be refunded by 31 May, 2018. The decision was rendered after the Court found that the three Universities had, before 2005, imparted education in technical fields through distance learning without obtaining approval from the concerned authorities. Further, while ex-postfacto permission was obtained after 2005, this permission was declared illegal by the Court, for lack of adherence to the principles laid down in this regard.
For those who had enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005, the Court noted that since 2004, the UGC Guidelines gave liberty to the concerned Universities to apply for the ex-postfacto approval and observed, “the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001- 2005 is protected”.
This ‘sympathy’ was, however, not shown to those who had enrolled after 2005, observing that the “Policy Statements as well as warnings issued from time to time were absolutely clear” with regard to the lack of sanction to such Courses.

Factual matrix

The Court was hearing two groups of Appeals– one arising from a judgment passed by Orissa High Court and the other arising from a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The litigation began when the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (OLIC) refused promotion to an in-service graduate Engineer, contending that the degrees obtained by the concerned candidates through distance education from JRN were not recognized degrees. It had, therefore, contended that they could not be considered Graduate Engineers eligible for the benefits. The Orissa High Court had, however, disagreed with OLIC, directing it to consider the candidates as in-service Engineers.
The Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court had sought a direction that degrees in Engineering obtained through distance education from certain Universities including JRN be declared invalid for the purpose of obtaining Government jobs in the State. The prayer was allowed by the Court.
The two High Courts had, therefore, rendered conflicting judgments, prompting the Supreme Court to take up the matters together.
Examine whether Deemed Universities can offer such distance education programs, the Court took note of the notifications, circulars and guidelines issued in this regard and observed that the Deemed Universities in the case at hand had sought ex-postfacto approval for their distance courses. None of these Universities had taken any prior permission from the University Grants Commission (UGC), AICTE and Distance Education Council (DEC).
While the approval was granted by the DEC, the Court ruled that the DEC was not empowered to grant such permissions without consulting the AICTE. It ruled that not only did the DEC lack jurisdiction to grant the approval, but that it had also granted the same without any inspection.
“This leads us to conclude that the permissions granted by DEC in the first instance allowing the Deemed to be Universities in question to introduce courses leading to the award of degrees in engineering were illegal and opposed to Law,” the Court ruled.
It, thereafter, went on to accept the view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court and set aside the judgment rendered by the Orissa High Court.
Directives:
In the 118 page judgment, the Apex Court lamented the commercialization of education and highlighted the need for an oversight and regulatory mechanism for distance education degrees, especially those relating to technical education.
It then reiterated its directions, summarizing them as follows:

I. 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to Deemed to be Universities and the Deemed to be Universities in the present matter were not justified in introducing any new courses in Technical Education without the approval of AICTE.
II  Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by UGC and their concerned authorities are set aside.
III Consequent to aforesaid direction No.II, all the degrees in Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities stand suspended.
IV The AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test/tests as indicated in Para 47 above. The option be given to the concerned students whose degrees stand suspended by 15.01.2018 to appear at the test/tests to be conducted in accordance with the directions in Para 47 above. Students be given not more than two chances to clear test/tests and if they do not successfully clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in Paras 46 and 47 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests shall be recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018.
V Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall be refunded entire money deposited by them towards tuition fee and other charges within one month of the exercise of such option. Needless to say their degrees shall stand cancelled and all advantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as mentioned in Para 47.
VI If the students clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully.
VII As regards students who were admitted after the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in Para 48 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be returned by the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.05.2018, as indicated in Para 48.
VIII By 31.05.2018 all the concerned Deemed to be Universities shall refund the sums indicated above in VII and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter.
IX We direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with the matters and went about the granting permissions against the policy statement, as indicated in Para 49 above and into the conduct of institutions who abused their position to advance their commercial interest illegally. Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after culmination of such investigation.
X The UGC shall also consider whether the Deemed to be University status enjoyed by JRN, AAI, IASE and VMRF calls for any withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf by 30.06.2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above are not refunded to the concerned students that factor shall be taken into account while conducting such exercise.
XI We restrain all Deemed to be Universities to carry on any courses in distance education mode from the Academic Session 2018- 2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific permission are granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus Centres/Study Centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the concerned Statutory Authorities. The approvals have to be course specific.
XII The UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps and implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain Deemed to be Universities from using the word ‘University’ within one month from today.
XIII The Union of India may constitute a three members Committee comprising of eminent persons who have held high positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or law at national level within one month. The Committee may examine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map for strengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six months. The Committee may also suggest oversight mechanism to regulate the Deemed to be Universities. The Union of India may examine the said report and take such action as may be considered appropriate within one month thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or before August 312018. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect on 11.09.2018.”

Drdo

SC cancels engineering degrees given by deemed universities through correspondence course

1 Comment

Amit Anand Choudhary | TIMESOFINDIA.COM | Updated: Nov 3, 2017, 16:26 IST
HIGHLIGHTS
The apex court restrained educational institutions from providing courses in subjects like engineering, in the distance education mode
With its ruling, the SC affirmed the findings of the Punjab and Haryana high court on the issue
Also with its ruling, the SC set aside a verdict by the Odisha high court, which allowed technical education by correspondence
NEW DELHI: Engineering degrees of hundreds of students who pursued education through correspondence course from four deemed Universities — JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education in Rajasthan, Allahabad Agricultural Institute and Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation in Tamil Nadu from year 2001 on wards have been quashed by the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit, however, allowed students of 2001-05 batch to get their degree by appearing in the examination to be conducted by AICTE but it cancelled the degrees of students of subsequent batches as the deemed university had not got approval from authorities for the course.
“As regards students who were admitted after the academic sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in engineering awarded by the concerned deemed to be universities through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the concerned deemed to be universities towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be returned by the concerned deemed to be universities,” the bench said.
The apex court also restrained deemed universities from offering correspondence courses without getting approval from AICTE. “We restrain all “deemed to be universities” to carry on any courses in distance education mode from the academic session 2018- 2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific permissions are granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus centres/study centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the concerned statutory authorities. The approvals have to be course specific,” the bench said.
The court also directed CBI inquiry to catch the government officials who had allowed deemed universities to offer the distance learning courses which was not allowed. The court asked the government to constitute a high-level committee to examine the functioning of deemed universities.
We direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with the matters and went about the granting permissions against the policy statement, as indicated in Para 49 above and into the conduct of institutions who abused their position to advance their commercial interest illegally.
“The Union of India may constitute a three members Committee comprising of eminent persons who have held high positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or law at national level within one month. The Committee may examine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map for strengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six months. The Committee may also suggest oversight mechanism to regulate the Deemed to be Universities. The Union of India may examine the said report and take such action as may be considered appropriate within one month thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or before August 31, 2018” it said.

Bloger

FIR filed against IIPM founder Arindam Chaudhuri

Leave a comment

PTI | May 12, 2015, 07.40 PM IST – The Times of India
arindamNEW DELHI: Delhi Police has registered an FIR against founder of Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) Arindam Chaudhuri based on a complaint by the University Grant Commission (UGC), which he has questioned while denying any wrong doing.

In its complaint the UGC has said the IIPM was “misleading”, “cheating” and “fooling” its students as it was not recognised by any regulatory body, police said.

“We have registered an FIR under Section 420 of IPC against IIPM Dean Arindam Choudhari and his father Malayendra Kisor Chaudhuri, who is a Director, based on the UGC complaint. We are probing the matter,” Joint CP (Crime) Ravindra Yadav said.

A notice has been sent to both of them to join the investigation, police said.

The UGC, in its complaint, has said that despite the fact its courses are not authorised, the institute is “fooling” the students by charging a hefty fee from them.

IIPM, however, has refuted all such allegations, saying that the institute was not cheating its students.

“It’s sad on a day when we launch a new program promoting entrepreneurship, the need of the hour, on the lines of our Prime Minister’s ‘Make in India’ dream, some sections of the media have decided to pick up a case that is 6 months old. Having said, that it’s nothing new,” IIPM dean Arindam Choudhari said in a statement.

“UGC and AICTE keep themselves in news by targeting IIPM with their lies because we have stayed consciously out of their purview and accused them of massive corruption”, he said.

“We have never claimed that the institute is recognised by any statutory body nor have we claimed we give degrees. We give certificates and write clearly everywhere that “students interested in de jure recognition of IIPM’s programmes need not apply to IIPM! Its written clearly since 1970s in our prospectus and in our websites since it came into effect,” the IIPM dean also said.

“I don’t realise how can this amount to cheating. We have faced this problem earlier also and have come out clean. This time as well, we will fight this. We have been cooperating with the police ever since the first notice came and will continue to do so as law abiding citizens,” he added.

Drdo

Manohar Parrikar tells DRDO to focues on core areas; says not to take up new projects

9 Comments
manohar-parrikar-tells-drdo-to-focues-on-core-areas-says-not-to-take-up-new-projects
manohar-parrikar-tells-drdo-to-focues-on-core-areas-says-not-to-take-up-new-projects

By Manu Pubby, ET Bureau | 26 Mar, 2015, 04.52AM IST
NEW DELHI: Most of the military systems it develops face time delays and cost escalation but ironically the one thing that the Defence Research and Development Organisation is considered good at by the armed forces – constructing buildings and executing civil works – is now being taken away.

Sending a clear message to India’s premier defence research agency to focus on its core functions, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has instructed that the organisation will no longer undertake civil and maintenance works of other departments, including entities like the Brahmos Missile Company and the Strategic Forces Command besides the three armed forces.

In a terse set of instructions to DRDO headquarters, Parrikar has ordered that the organisation shall no longer undertake any new civil or maintenance works projects with effect from March 12, choking a large portion of its independent revenue stream.

drdo detailsIt is a lesser known facet of the organisation but DRDO has a works department that executes construction projects – from office buildings to missile storage units, launching areas and accommodation – worth over Rs 5,000 crore every year.

Beside projects for armed forces, DRDO has recently constructed the new AICTE headquarters in Delhi.

Drdo

Alarming Situation in DRDO For HR Management

2 Comments
To                                                                                                         31st March 2014
Sh A K Antony,
Defence Minister,
Room -104, South Block
New Delhi – 110011

Subject:  Alarming Situation in DRDO For HR Management

DRDO has established more than 52 Labs/Establishments across the country with an aim and object to provide reliable & sustainable warfare technologies to the defence forces.

In its pursuit to evade the frontline technology, DRDO encourages its employees and officials to pursue higher qualification and provides all possible incentives as per GOI rules and guidelines.

DRDO Hqrs/ top brasses however, misuses the GOI facilities and encourages the diploma/ degrees from unrecognized universities/institutes for their pet employees (Chamchas), largely the cases are from the universities which are recognized by the UGC/AICTE but the courses offered by these in the mode of distance education, where the study centers / franchises are not properly authorized by UGC/AICTE or Apex body. Most of the cases in DRDO, these Diploma /Degrees are managed fraudulently because it is observed that employee who claimed the diploma / degree not having proper marks sheets, not having proof of proper fee receipts, not having leave records as per exam date sheets, not having admit cards of centers/ and n numbers of ways to verify the degree/ diploma etc.

Surprisingly, you will be shocked to know that these diploma / degree holders have become senior scientists and in DRDO, almost 10 to 15% in total staff / Technical officers / scientists possess such diploma/ degrees etc.

The growing incompetency and failure of projects causes shift towards system engineering. Since 15 years the basic science or fundamental research work has vanished from DRDO objectives, because of improperly qualified workforce.

The person inducted as laborer/peon/security assistant or technician, subsequently via limited departmental competitive examination (LDCE) channel and with the fake/unrecognized diploma / degree become scientist. It is all because of DRDO having their own recruitment and assessment system that is RAC & CEPTAM.

Sir, you already noticed few top scientists of DRDO misused the autonomy given to DRDOyou’re your good office recommended to reexamine the recruitment procedure of scientist in DRDO and asked for CBI intervention vide Ref- Note at 45-55 ante and observations of JS & CVO at note 56 ante.

RTI reveals that DRDO having such employees/ officers who don’t have proper recognized diploma / degree but no action was taken on this issue by DRDO Hqrs till date. (Copy enclosed for ready reference.)

In RTI reply No.01/2091/P2014/0054 dated 12 March 2014 DRDO Hqrs informed that “it is stated that the cases for grant of Lump Sum Incentive are received from respective Labs/Estt in which it is certified that the higher qualifications and the institute are approved by the competent authority. On receipt of such confirmation, the cases are submitted to Ministry of Defence who process each and every cases and issue sanction for grant of Lump Sum Incentives after getting concurrence of the Integrated Finance. However, in case of any doubt regarding verification/ reorganization, the same is thoroughly examined before issuing the sanction. It is also stated here that the lump sum incentive is only one time to promote higher qualification among employees.” (Copy Enclosed for ready reference)

Sir, the astonishing fact of DRDO working is revealed by Director of Personal vide letter No DOP/01/03500/Lump sum/M01 dated March 2014 to all Director Lab/Estt/ Dte in Hq dated 11 March 2014 in Para – 1, line- 9 states that “Of late it has been notice that in most of the cases are taken up acquiring higher qualification, recognition of various courses and universities/ institutes by Competent Authority is not verified/ authenticated by Labs prior to sanction of permission. This non verification in the some cases results in award of degrees/ diplomas by Universities / Institutes not recognized by the competent recognizing authorities. Grant of incentives for such higher qualification becomes against the Rules”   (Copy enclosed for your ready reference.)

It is requested that suitable committee should be form under supervision of CVO, MoD to scrutinize the DRDO scientist, officials and staff’s education qualification records thoroughly, so the incompetent and illegally inducted persons can weed out.

DRDO already spends crores of rupees for digitizing HR records so it is not big task to scrutinize the DRDO’s 7000+ scientists, 25000 + officials and staff’s education qualification.

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
phone 0135 -2787750 Mobile 0911114879
e-mail id – prabhudoon@gmail.com website -www.corruptionindrdo.com
 
To
Dr. Syamal Kumar Sarkar
Secretary (Personnel)
Department of Personnel and Training
North Block, New Delhi -110001
 
To
Sh Avinash Chander,
DG DRDO, SA to RM,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
NEW DELHI -110105
 
To
Smt. Smita Nagaraj,
Joint Secretary (PlC) & CVO ,
Ministry of Defence, 109-B, South Block, 
New Delhi- 10011
 
 fake degree dop letter
fake degree dop letter page2
RTI reply drdo hq fake degree12 march
FA Reply1
FA Reply1

fareplypage2

List from DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun
List from DEAL, DRDO, Dehradun

 

Drdo

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

1 Comment
To,                                                                                   7th February 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO,
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110011                             

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 27th 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)

Regards
Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,  

 

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

Drdo

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

1 Comment
To,                                                                               3rd  February 2014
Dr. RB Sharma, CPIO,
DRDO HQ, Min. of Defence,
DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110011                           

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 27th 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 Jawharlal  Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. The website of Jawharlal  Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad stated in their website that “ the school was offering B.Tech correspondence – cum – contact programme (CCC) from 1983 to 2009. Keeping in view of the ACITE guidelines for B.Tech (CCC) has been suspended since 2010.”

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”

  1. Sh. Siyaram, STA ‘B’  RCI acquired B Tech Mech Engg in 1 June 2010 from JNTU, Hyderabad
  2. Shri A Venkateshwara Rao, STA ‘B’ DRDL, acquired B Tech Mech Engg in 1 August 2010 from JNTU, Hyderabad
  3. Sh. G Venkatesh STA ‘, DMRL acquired B Tech Civil Engg in 7 March 2012 from JNTU, Hyderabad
  4. Sh. B Baludu, TO’A’ RCI, acquired B Tech Mech. Engg in 7 March 2012 from JNTU, Hyderabad

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.
  3. Copy of DRDO’s procedure followed for verification of Degree’s/Diploma/M.Sc/ Ph D

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

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur,
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com

Registration Number            – MODEF/R/2014/60222

jntu

 

RTI  http://bit.ly/1lwUyBO  Reply from DRDO

RTI reply RTI reply1 RTI reply2 RTI reply3 RTI reply4 RTI reply5 RTI reply6 RTI reply7 RTI reply8 RTI reply9 RTI reply10

Uncategorized

IGNOU has no authority to recognize regular colleges, rules HC

Leave a comment

PTI : New Delhi, Tue Jul 23 2013, 20:17 hrs – The Indian Express
In a significant verdict, the Delhi High Court today ruled that Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) has no “legal authority” either to set up or accord recognition to an institution or college to impart “face-to-face” regular education. IGNOU, set up in 1985 to promote distance education, was dragged to court by various institutions, including Hindustan Aviation Academy, which were first allowed by the University to run B Tech and Diploma programme courses in the area of Aerospace Engineering. However, IGNOU later noticed that its approval to run “face-to-face” programme did not not meet legal requirements and asked the approved institutes to keep the admission process at abeyance.

IGNOU also noticed that the necessary prior approval from AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) for running such courses was also not taken. Disposing of a bunch of petitions of institutions, Justice V K Jain said, “(since) IGNOU had no legal authority to set up or recognise institutions/colleges on the lines of regular colleges where education is imparted by way of face-to-face programmes, requiring students to mandatorily attend classes, the petitioners’ institutes cannot be said to be institutions, constituent colleges, units or affiliated colleges of IGNOU, nor can they be said the ‘study centres’ within the meaning of the IGNOU Act.”

The court also rapped IGNOU for not informing students about its decision to suspend admission for academic years 2012-13. It also said that the university also did not follow the principles of natural justice while restraining institutes from taking admissions as no show cause notice was served on them in this regard. The court, in its 37-page judgement, said, “The respondent university is clearly guilty of gross negligence and inaction. No attempt was taken by it to ensure that students who in the absence of public notice from the university, could not be expected to be aware of its decision to suspend admission for the academic years 2012-13, did not pay fees to petitioners’ institutes and did not take admission.”