Mohammed Akhef | TNN | Updated: Oct 1, 2016, AURANGABAD: A city-based associate professor has sent a fresh complaint to the defence ministry alleging discrimination during a recruitment process by Defence Institute of Advanced Technology (DIAT) in Pune.
In support of his claim, the associate professor has attached a bunch of “self-contradictory” documents from the DIAT received under the RTI Act. The DIAT – a deemed university funded by the defence ministry – had published an advertisement on April 25, 2015, inviting applications for the post of assistant professor in the technology management. It received as many as 18 applications.
In an RTI reply, the DIAT clearly stated that the scrutiny committee shortlisted nine applicants – all holding a postgraduate degree in management. Subsequently, the shortlisted candidates were called for an interview on September 12, 2015. The interview was attended by all the shortlisted candidates, following which one was provisionally selected and his name was published on DIAT’s website on the same night.
Unconvinced with the selection, the Aurangabad-based associate professor, Dr Nitin Untwal, challenged the decision of the selection committee and sent a letter to the DIAT, claiming that the appointment was in violation of the University Grant Commission norms. Untwal holds an MBA, MCom, PhD and has cleared UGC SET.
Taking cognisance of Untwal’s letter, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has initiated a probe into the recruitment as the seat was reserved for an OBC candidate. Untwal has also lodged a series of complaints with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). The PMO, in its reply, cited a Supreme Court judgment in the case between one P Sushila and UGC for carrying out the recruitment process.
According to Untwal’s complaint, out of the 18 applicants, nine were disqualified on the grounds that they did not have a PG or a master’s degree in management. He added that eventually a candidate with an M-Tech degree was not only shortlisted, but selected.
Moreover, an RTI query with the National Institute of Technology in Calicut revealed that M-Tech under mechanical engineering (industrial engineering and management) is not equivalent to postgraduation in management.
In a fresh complaint, Untwal cited that a letter sent by the DIAT to the UGC – a copy which has been obtained under RTI on September 28, 2015 – the DIAT stated that the essential qualification for the post were as per para 4.4.5 of the UGC regulation 2010, which is a post graduate degree in management declared equivalent by AICTE/AIU.
In its RTI reply, the DIAT on May 23, 2016 stated that the essential qualification for the position were as per para 4.4.6.1 of the UGC regulation 2010, which says that “the essential qualification for the post is a postgraduate degree in engineering and technology”.
When contacted, DIAT officials refused to comment. But in a reply to a query posed via email, DIAT’s joint registrar (administration) T V Ananthasubramanian said, “I am directed to forward the following as our response: Dr Untwal was a candidate for the position of assistant professor for technology management. He was not found suitable by the duly constituted Selection committee and hence, not selected. His various queries to DIAT and various other agencies and authorities, including the Hon’ble Raksha Mantri/Chancellor, DIAT have been replied. The DIAT has nothing more to add to the answers given earlier.”
PTI | May 12, 2015, 07.40 PM IST – The Times of India NEW 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.
To 20th February 2015
Hon’ble
Shri Manohar Parrikar,
Defence Minister,
Min. of Defence, Room No -104, South Block
New Delhi-110011
SUBJECT
Request for assign scientific work to DR. A.K. SINGH, DIRECTOR, Dte of Personnel (DOP), DRDO HQ so that he could not influence the probe and temper the evidences and not able to protect DRDO’s corrupt officials and also not able to support corrupt DRDO Directors to harass the whistle blowers.
Honourable Sir,
It is requested to sake of DRDO image, productivity, to save money to curtailing in court cases, to protect honest scientists and whistle blowers please reshuffle immediately the DRDO scientists who are involved in non scientific assignments since 10 -15 years and main reason of DRDO’s current non productive image. These incompetent scientists are great example of exemplary carrier growth without doing science in DRDO. Dr. A.K. Singh, Director, Dte of Personnel (DOP), DRDO HQ case is on the top, Dr R K Jain who is the boss of Scientists recruitment centre master mind of pushing all incompetent scientists on the top and country facing tremendous loss in respect of technology development, in respect of wastage in money and he was enjoyed his three consequent out staying promotion without doing science.
Sir, if you ask young real scientists, not incompetent ones, who come through LDCE will certainly going to pin point these two great scientists the main reason behind the downfall of DRDO.
The DRDO is great organisation in term of HR qualification enhancement. There are hundreds of examples where someone joined DRDO as peon/security guard or casual labour or Technician and within five to 10 years year span he become Technical Officer or in some cases scientists.
If you enquire DRDO regarding this kind of example of fake qualifications you will found thousands of degree diploma cases from unrecognised centre without doing study only managed. This is the major reason of DRDO’s corruption, nepotism and above all degradation of DRDO HR quality.
On 15th February 2015 DRDO, RAC conducted the limited departmental examination for scientist ‘B’ post for DRDO’s employees, you will find more than 90% cases candidates not having properly UGC or ACETE or DCE approved degrees. The certificates they enclosed are from recognised universities or institutes but the process of acquiring degrees are totally not recognised as per UGC norms.
And best part is that these two duos (Dr A K Singh & Dr. R K Jain) are the key persons to organise the game plan the application format was designed such a way that the degree acquiring process not able to revealed the ineligibility of candidate..
But interestingly till date they have not found single case only with the help of RTI four high profile cases were exposed resulted two scientists job was annulled and two are under process and Ex Defence Minister approved for CBI inquiry on 14th October 2013 and also given approval for reconsider the DRDO recruitments through UPSC,
Sir, if government is serious about to revamp DRDO and make it productive worth organisation than first thing scarp RAC & CEPTAM immediately. These two bodies are engaged almost more than 25 scientists and number of technical manpower. Both establishments are den of corruption and nepotism. Because of these two establishments DRDO getting third grade manpower.
Main evidence of these establishments working screens the recruitments and promotions and court cases and RTIs which are sufficient to justify the above statement.
I have filed following complaints against Dr. A.K. Singh, Director, Dte of Personnel (DOP), DRDO HQ.
DM letter table 20 feb
In this connection I got Letter No. DVS/02/2053/P/63 dated 12 Feb 2015 from Dte of Vigilance & Security, DRDO, Min. of Defence, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi for confirmation to my complaint dated 14 Nov 2014 to Hon’ble Defence Minister (mentioned at sr. no. 4 above). Copy enclosed as Annexure-1 and I sent the confirmation vide letter dated 20 Feb 2015. Copy enclosed as Annexure-2.
Sir, on 25 March 2014 the Supreme Court of India told N. Srinivasan to step down as BCCI president so that a fair investigation may be conducted. The court found it “nauseating” that he should hold on to the post despite various courts censuring him.
On 27th November,2014 the Supreme Court said that N Srinivasan’s conflict of interest was “obvious” as he also owned a team i.e. CSK in the IPL. The court also asked BCCI if it was open to have fresh polls for a new board without N Srinivasan.
Accordingly Mr. N.Srinivasan announced that he was stepping aside from the post of President of the BCCI until the probe was completed ostensibly.
[CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4235 OF 2014 with CIVIL APPEAL NO.4236 OF 2014 and SLP (C) No.34228 of 2014 , Supreme Court Of India]
In the light of the above facts stated above, I kindly request that for fair probe on complaints against Dr. A.K. Singh, Director, DOP, and request assigned him some other scientific assignment as per his credentials so that he could not influence the probe and temper the evidences. Because he always boast up that his father was great police officer and that’s why I have able to retain bungalow at 14-B, Mother Teresa Crescent, New Delhi-110011 along with ministers. He also protects corrupt DRDO officials and supports them in lodging false FIR against the whistle blowers.
As Dr. A.K. Singh, Director (Personnel), DRDO HQ, New Delhi using his position to harass number of DRDO scientists like
Dr Gausal Azam Kahn, Sc ‘D’, DIPAS on the demand of his sister Dr Sahshi Bala Singh, Director, DIPAS He cooked false charge sheet against him who was joined DRDO direct Scientist D in DRDO NRI scheme,
Sh N P Gupta, Sc ‘C’, DMSRDE a computer science background scientist thrown to Life Science Lab, DRL, Tezpur just because to protect corrupt Dr A K Saxena, Director, DMSRDE,
Sh D Muthuraja, Scientist E was shunted to ACME Nashik without work as he did complaint against the wrong deeds of Sh Guruprasad, Director, R&D Eng. of making Rath in R&D premises without any fear and wasted precious poor tax payers money and DRDO manpower (two parliamentarian already raised question in zero hour on 18th December 2014)
As per sources you might be received answer from Sh Guru Parsad , Director, R&D Eng., DRDO, Pune the bullock story “making of Rath was not just devotional activity but also interesting technical task. Apart from saving bullock burden”
On last August DRDO award ceremony our Prime Minister mentioned to DRDO scientist please do something to reduce weight of our soldiers uniform like light weight shoes etc. That time our PM not aware of DRDO’s kind hearted scientists who already spent 5 corers Rs to saving bullock burden.
Dr A K Singh gave his all administrative supports to harass above scientists, Sir there are 100 of cases available their Dr A K Singh supporting Lab directors in ACR/APAR cases, promotions cases specially in minorities etc, Sir, It is requested please ask the total amount spend by DRDO in various court cases like CATs/District Courts/High courts and Supreme Court in Dr A K Singh tenure it is self explanatory of his administrative capability and degrading HR quality and image of DRDO.
To Date – 15th October 2014Prof. Dinesh Singh,Vice-Chancellor,Delhi University,Delhi -110007
Subject: Request for inquiry of fake experience certificate issued from Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Center for Biomedical Research North Campus, Delhi University.
Reference: RTI reply received from CPIO, DU vide letter No Info/ OA/ 1761/ 2014/ 5294 Dated 30th September 2014
Sir,
Delhi University since its inception is guiding source for all other Indian universities due to its proximity with education ministry, UGC and power center at Delhi.
With passage of time, however, it has been noticed that casual attitude has been taken over and faculties are involve in recruitments in various government organizations as a expert and “very early they have adopted a culture of one man scratch another man back”
The opportunity give Delhi University for collaborating the science and technology with various labs have been diluted when some faculties shows leniency in performing the business which has lowered the image of DU.
One such example of this casual attitude has been surfaced when one senior scientist with ten years service annulled on last Friday 10th October 2014 as the appointment found manipulated and the DU environment biology faculty was participated as a expert for interview of Biotechnology scientist recruitment in RAC, DRDO.
It is astonishing fact that how DU administration allowed environment biology faculty to play role as expert for Biotechnology scientist recruitment and bunch of brilliant biotechnology candidate he selected environmental biology candidate. Basically he was instrumental for the said task but we all believe that no professor will help the corrupt official because rest candidates are also their students.
Another case observed of issuing experience certificate to Mrs S Geetha by Prof. Vani Brahmachari, ACBR. Earlier RTI reply by CPIO, DU clearly send that all six faculties specifically denied that Mrs S Geetha never work in any research project at ACBR including the signatory Prof. Vani Brahmachari.
Recent above reference RTI reply the information given by Prof K Natrajan, Offg, Director, ACBR vide letter no ACBR/14/843 dated 29/30 September 2014 stated that the issued certificate is genuine without furnishing any evidence financial/report/application/ appointment letter etc of Mrs S Geetha which can justify that Mrs S Geetha worked as research assistant for 38 days at ACBR.
It seems Prof K Natrajan, Offg, Director, ACBR not serious about the image of DU and trying to mislead the authorities of HRD ministries. He also not aware the Sh A K Antony already given approval for CBI inquiry on 29th October 2013 reference Notes at 48-55 ante and the observation of JS & CVO at note 56 ante (few pages is enclosed herewith for ready reference)
It is requested for the sake of DU image and for sake of eligible students who study hard to get good job and wish to serve nation but the nexus of corrupts ruins their honest wish, therefore, an authoritative investigation required for the matter pertaining to Mrs S Geetha. It will further stop the casual attitude of faculties and directors of Delhi University to play with future of genuine scholars.
Experience Certificate issued by Prof Vani Brahmachari.
Assistant Registrar, Delhi university internal circular
RTI reply CPIO, Delhi university
CVO, MOD noting few relevant pages
CVO, MOD Noting DRDO on recruitment complaint Page 1
CVO, MOD Noting DRDO on recruitment complaint page 12CVO, MOD Noting DRDO on recruitment complaint page 13CVO, MOD Noting DRDO on recruitment complaint page 26
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 lateit has been notice that in most of the cases are taken up acquiring higher qualification, recognition of various courses and universities/ institutes by CompetentAuthority 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- 10011FA Reply1
To, 4th March 2014
Central Public Information Officer,
DMSRDE, DRDO, Min of Defence,
GT Road, Kanpur-208013
Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information under purview of RTI Act 2005 in respect of Mr. Ajay Kishore Sharan, STA-B, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
Recruitment & Promotions in DRDO for DRTC are governed by DRDO Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2000 notified vide number SRO 296 dated 05 December 2000 as amended framed by Ministry of Defence, Government of India. There is provision of recruitment of STA-B through LDCE under Rule 5(5) of DRDO Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2000.
DMSRDE, Kanpur is an establishment under Materials Cluster of DRDO. LDCE 2012 for DRTC was conducted by DMSRDE for recruitment of STA -B and Mr. Ajay Kishore Sharan, STA -B (presently posted in Applied Chemistry Division, DMSRDE) was recruited on post of STA -B through LDCE 2012.
Essential Qualification Requirement (EQR) pertaining to the post of STA -B for recruitment under LDCE 2012 at DMSRDE, Kanpur.
Certified Copy of application submitted by Mr. Ajay Kishore Sharan for LDCE -2012
Certified Copy of board proceeding of LDCE- 2012, DMSRDE, Kanpur includingfile noting for constitution of Selection Board for LDCE 2012 for DRTC by Director, DMSRDE.
The composition of Selection Board for LDCE 2012 at DMSRDE for recruitment of STA ‘B’ under Rule 5(6) & Schedule IV of DRDO Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2000 with name & rank of Chairperson & Members of Selection Board.
Copy of recommendations of Selection Board after LDCE 2012 for recruitment of Mr. Ajay Kishore Sharan on the post of STA ‘B’ duly approved by Director, DMSRDE.
Copy of appointment letter issued by Director, DMSRDE for recruitment of Mr. Ajay Kishore Sharan on post of STA ‘B’ after recruitment in LDCE 2012.
Copy of themark sheets & degree issued by the concerned Institution/University from which Mr. Ajay Kishore Sharan, STA ‘B’ achieved B.Sc. degree on the basis of which he was recruited on post of STA ‘B’ in LDCE 2012.
Whether qualifying degree of Mr. Ajay Kishore Sharan, STA -Bfor appearing in LDCE 2012 was UGC recognized. (Yes/No)
Whether any letter was sent to UGC regarding recognition of B.Sc. Psychology degree issued by Annamalai University under distance education. (Yes/No)
If answer to point (9) is yes then provide copy of the letter sent to UGC, New Delhi from DMSRDE, Kanpur.
Whether any confirmation achieved till date from UGC regarding recognition of B.Sc. Psychology degree issued by Annamalai University under distance education. (Yes/No)
Provide details of all candidates appeared in LDCE 2012 for the recruitment on post of STA -B in DMSRDE, Kanpur in following format.
Any approval was taken from DRDO Hqrs for post of STA – B (B.Sc. Psychology) (Yes/No)
Note – It is alleged that Mr. Ajay Kishore Sharan, -B was recruited on post of STA ‘B’ through LDCE 2012 at DMSRDE, Kanpur on the basis of un recognized degree from UGC and his qualifying degree of B. Sc. Psychology is not covered under Rule 5(5) and Schedule II of DRDO Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2000.
The recruitment of Mr. Ajay Kishore Sharan is provisional on post of STA ‘B’. Therefore the recruitment of Mr. Ajay Kishore Sharan, STA -B was made with gross violation of DRDO Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2000 and Corruption by Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE, Kanpur.
The information sought pertains to misuse of power in official capacity of Dr. Arvind Kumar Saxena, Director, DMSRDE and falls under the ambit of corruption, therefore not exempted u/s (24) of RTI Act 2005.
To, 7th February 2014Dr. 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 2013Tirthabasi 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.
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.
Sh Shankar K N, STA ‘C’ LRDE acquired B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) in 12 Jan 2013 from JRN University, Rajasthan.
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.
The certified copy of verification before approving lump sum grant of incentive to above officials.
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)
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
Appeal to clean DRDO of corrupt and anti-national officials
AURANGABAD: A city-based associate professor has sent a fresh complaint to the defence ministry alleging discrimination during a recruitment process by Defence Institute of Advanced Technology (DIAT) in Pune.
