Tag Archives: IGNOU

Drdo

RTI-PCDA (R&D) – Audit of service books

Leave a comment
To,                                                                                                                    16th July 2014
Shri Pritam Dutta, IDAS,
ACDA, CPIO,CVO,
O/o PCDA (R&D), West Block-V,
R K PURAM,
NEW DELHI- 110066              

 

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of audit of service books of DRDO officials. It is observed that several DRDO officials were acquired Diploma/ Degree after joining DRDO from various deemed universities / private institutes/IGNOU via distance education mode etc. and most of the cases the courses are not recognised by APEX body like UGC/AICTE/DEC etc. in RTI replies DRDO also accepted this facts. (Copy enclosed)

  1. Provide the copy of audit reports of service record verification specially the part where the higher qualification was endorsed of Sh Hoshiyar Singh Kalsi, STA-C, Smt. Nisha Teneja, STA-C,Sh Ramesh Kotiyal, STA-B, Smt. Netu Rawat, STA-B, Sh Virendra Singh Negi, STA-B,Sh Saket Jain,STA-B, Sh.Sudhir Kumar, STA-B of DEAL Dehradun.
  2. Provide the certified copies of verifications reports provided by administration of DEAL Dehradun towards above mentioned seven officials of DEAL, Dehradun.

 

 Note : Matter is directly related to corruption and not exempted under Section 24 (1) as a proof the RTI replies and DOP, DRDO letter is enclosed

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, Dehradun -248008
Phone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879,
e-mail id prabhudoon@gmail.com  website www.corruptionindrdo.com
Drdo RTI reply on fake degree 1
Drdo RTI reply on fake degree 2
Drdo RTI reply on fake degree 3
 
RTI reply drdo hq fake degree12 marchfake degree dop letterfake degree dop letter page2
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

Uncategorized

High Court restrains PTU admissions in distance courses

1 Comment

The Punjab Technical University (PTU) has been restrained by the Delhi High Court from admitting students in its distance education programme courses till IGNOU accords approval on the issue for the current academic year.

A bench of Chief Justice D Murugesan and Justice V K Jain told ”We direct the second respondent university not to admit any student pursuant to the advertisement made on December 3, 2012 without specific approval from respondent No. 6 Distance Education Council of IGNOU.”

The court’s order came on a petition filed by one Tilak Singh, a resident of Delhi, alleging that the University was inviting applications despite the fact that it’s plea for extension for running the distance education programme courses was pending with IGNOU.

“Vide communication dated October 12, 2012, the Distance Education Council (of IGNOU) has also directed the Punjab Technical University not to admit any student till the application for extension/approval of recognition is pending.

“In spite of the above communication, it appears that the University in question has published advertisement…Calling for applications of the students. Now, in our opinion, in the absence of of any recognition or approval, the University cannot make any admission and that too when the it has been specifically told by the Council concerned that the students should not be admitted,” the court said.

The court has asked the PTU and others to file their responses to the petition and fixed the matter for hearing on March 11.

During the hearing, the counsel for Singh said the PTU was playing with the career of lakhs of students and have duped them to the tune of crores of rupees

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.”