NEW DELHI: Though the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) had forwarded allegations about malpractices in JEE-2006 to Damodar Acharya, director of IIT-Kharagpur, way back in 2007, the institute did not feel the need to order a probe. Instead, IIT-Kharagpur told the HRD ministry that "as per conduct rule of the institute no employee is permitted to publish any article anonymously or in the name of any other person to any newspaper or periodical."
The then registrar D Gunasekaran was referring to the source material that was the basis of allegation about the bungling in JEE-2006. To make matters worse, IIT-Kharagpur also did not inform — as was unearthed later — the ministry that the JEE answer sheets and other materials were already destroyed in 2006.
Gunasekaran said action be taken against the author of the source material. TOI reported last week how Prof A K Ghosh, who was then the chairperson of IIT-JEE, Kharagpur, had sought permission for shredding of JEE papers in 2006. Ghosh was also Chief Vigilance Officer of the institute. Early this year, Ghosh in a reply to an RTI query even stated, "During my tenure as CVO of IIT, Kharagpur I haven't received any queries from CVC regarding irregularities in JEE 2006."
The source material forwarded by CVC had alleged that there were many cut-off procedures submitted by IIT-Kharagpur, but none of which could calculate stated cut-off marks due to a slew of discrepancies. For instance, many high scoring candidates failed to make the grade while many with lower scores, strangely, got selected. Irregularities came to the fore regarding manual corrections and tampering of chemistry scripts, andchildren of IIT administrators scoring high marks.
IIT-Kharagpur has been averse to the Right to Information Act as is evident from this entire episode. Even last month, when asked to supply all communications along with the action taken report and file notings, in deference to all communications received by IIT-Kharagpur from CVC and CVO/MHRD, A Patra, principal information officer of the institute, asked RTI applicant Rajeev Kumar, "If you desire to have information regarding proceedings of CVC, CVO/MHRD, against individuals and the ATR thereon, would you explain why such information are required in larger public interest."
Section 6(2) of RTI Act 2005 clearly states, "An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information"
The then registrar D Gunasekaran was referring to the source material that was the basis of allegation about the bungling in JEE-2006. To make matters worse, IIT-Kharagpur also did not inform — as was unearthed later — the ministry that the JEE answer sheets and other materials were already destroyed in 2006.
Gunasekaran said action be taken against the author of the source material. TOI reported last week how Prof A K Ghosh, who was then the chairperson of IIT-JEE, Kharagpur, had sought permission for shredding of JEE papers in 2006. Ghosh was also Chief Vigilance Officer of the institute. Early this year, Ghosh in a reply to an RTI query even stated, "During my tenure as CVO of IIT, Kharagpur I haven't received any queries from CVC regarding irregularities in JEE 2006."
The source material forwarded by CVC had alleged that there were many cut-off procedures submitted by IIT-Kharagpur, but none of which could calculate stated cut-off marks due to a slew of discrepancies. For instance, many high scoring candidates failed to make the grade while many with lower scores, strangely, got selected. Irregularities came to the fore regarding manual corrections and tampering of chemistry scripts, andchildren of IIT administrators scoring high marks.
IIT-Kharagpur has been averse to the Right to Information Act as is evident from this entire episode. Even last month, when asked to supply all communications along with the action taken report and file notings, in deference to all communications received by IIT-Kharagpur from CVC and CVO/MHRD, A Patra, principal information officer of the institute, asked RTI applicant Rajeev Kumar, "If you desire to have information regarding proceedings of CVC, CVO/MHRD, against individuals and the ATR thereon, would you explain why such information are required in larger public interest."
Section 6(2) of RTI Act 2005 clearly states, "An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information"
No comments:
Post a Comment