Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'favouritism'.
Found 4 results
rangaphy9 posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportI have filed an RTI on IITPatna regarding showing favoritism in recruitment of faculty by the IIT Director. The Director of IIT Patna has appointed his own student as faculty. I suspect there is favoritism. To bring out I have filed RTI to know the following details. 1. Provide the complete and detailed information about qualifications/experience possessed by Dr. Dinesh Kotnees, Asst. Prof. of IIT Patna. Please provide copies of related documents. 2. Please provide details about selection and appointing procedure followed during his recruitment. The details should include the number of candidates applied and number of candidates selected for interview. The screening criteria followed for calling to interview. 3. Please provide name of the persons with designations of those who are on screening committee/panel/board during his recruitment. Provide also the name of the persons with designations involved in the process. Please provide the related file-notings/documents/correspondence for the same. 4. Kindly provide the references and recommendations furnished by Dr. Dinesh Kumar Kotnees in his application for the post. 5. Provide the name of the persons with designations of who are on interview panel/board during his recruitment. 6. Kindly provide the name of the persons with designations responsible for choosing the interview panel members for this/his recruitment. Provide related file-notings/documents/correspondence. 7. Provide the reasons for choosing the said interview panel members? 8. Are there any indicators of merit for assessing the candidates for selection. If yes, what are those indicators? Please provide the related complete and detailed information. 9. Kindly provide the factual information such as API scores, available with IIT Patna for selecting the Dr. Dinesh Kumar Kotnees. Provide related file-notings /documents/correspondence. 10. Whether Dr. Dinesh Kotnees has any academic association with current director, Prof Anil K Bhowmick, earlier in any capacity. If yes, please provide the complete and detailed information including nature of association, tenure of association for the same. If they have any publications/patents/conferences in common please provide related details. 11. Please provide the research details of Dr. Dinesh Kotnees such as under whose supervision he has submitted his doctoral and post- doctoral thesis, if any and the details of period of his research. 12. Provide me the complete and detailed information about qualifications/experience possessed by applicants called for interview during the selection of Dr. Dinesh Kotnees. Provide also the indicators of merits/API Scores obtained by other candidates during the interview for the post of Asst. Professors. 13. Whether secrecy about members of interview panel during the process of recruitment is maintained. If yes, please provide the detailed measures that are taken for the same. 14. Kindly provide the copies of recruitment notification and the applications given by each candidate called for the interview for which Dr. Dinesh Kumar Kotnees was selected. 15. What are the actions that can be taken if irregularities in appointments are noticed? 16. Please provide the authority higher than The Director, IIT Patna to whom complaints about irregularities in appointments can be registered. Provide also authority in DST and concerned Ministry to whom complaints about irregularities in appointments can be registered. They FAA and CPIO didnot provide information quoting section 8.1(g),(e) (j) and 11(1). I want to file second appeal. I am also well versed in RTI, but I want to be more effective. I want help from experts in this forum. IITP-FAA reply.pdf rti reply IITP.pdf RTI IITP.docx
MusicalSoul posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportHello everybody! In connection with my First Appeal filed on 4th March, 2013 with the F.A.A. of my city's Municipal Corporation (Mayor) due to inaction of the S.P.I.O. (C.E.O.), I have received his notice for hearing of the First Appeal on 1st June, 2013, i.e. after the expiry of 90 days from the date of filing the First Appeal, stating the date of hearing as 5th June, 2013. I want to know the following in this regard: 1) Should I appear in this overly delayed hearing? If yes, what should be my approach? If no, how should I proceed further? 2) The F.A.A. is well-known to defend the S.P.I.O. by asking the appellants to produce written proof for everything. Therefore, I need written proof for the following: i. Only the S.P.I.O. can sign on the letters sent to the applicants in response to their applications under the R.T.I. Act. ii. Somebody else can represent the appellant for the First Appeal hearing, with the appellant's authorization, without stating any reason for the same. iii. If a notice for hearing is not delivered to the appellant 7 clear days prior to the date of hearing, the period is insufficient. Thanks & regards.
As reported at zeenews.com on February 18, 2011 New Delhi: Amidst all scandals and scams that the Congress is embroiled in, there is another controversy that seems to be staring the party in the face and Delhi’s Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit is bang in the middle of it. So much so, that the Lokayukta is now conducting an inquiry pertaining to the same. According to an exclusive report by Zee News channel, it has emerged that the Delhi Chief Minister has been favouring her relatives while passing tenders amounting to Rs 12.5 crores for consultancy assignments doled out by Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corp Ltd (DSIIDC) for construction and developmental works to be undertaken in some 300 Delhi schools. The DSIIDC is the agency of the Delhi government for construction of houses for Urban Poor. The Zee News probe has found that the consultancy assignment was given to that firm in which one of the Chief Minister’s relative was working and also that the fees for the same was pegged at three times the price of the market rate. This controversy has given ammunition to the opposition party, mainly the BJP, which is demanding a CBI inquiry into the whole matter. The company which is said to have received undue favours is Infrastructure Leasing and Financial services Ltd. One of Sheila Dikshit’s relatives Charu Malhotra, her sister’s daughter-in-law, is a top executive in the said company. It has been alleged that IL&FS got the consultancy assignments for the construction work to be undertaken in Delhi schools because of Charu’s proximity to the CM. And it has also been alleged that while passing the tender the rules for the same were not adhered to. In 2006, Jalaj Srivastava, the MD of DSIIDC, is said to have passed a one-sided tender favouring IL&FS, while rejecting the tenders of other companies sighting various shortcomings. It is alleged that one of the employees of DSIIDC, RN Bararia, was dismissed when he objected to the wrongdoing. In fact, Srivastava is said to have threatened the employee and asked him to sit at home, otherwise he would be thrashed. For all his high-handedness, Jalaj Srivastava was not only promoted but made the Trade and Tax Commissioner. Now, the Delhi Lokayukta has asked for all the documents related to the controversy which took place during Srivastava’s tenure, on the basis of a RTI application filed by RN Bararia. On the other hand, the CM is said to have commented that the purview of the Lokayukta should be limited to the politicians and officials should not be brought under it.
Atul Patankar posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported at navhindtimes.in on 11 December 2009 PANAJI: The claims of the Entertainment Society of Goa, which actually should have been named as the Extravagant Society of Goa, that it has curtailed the budget of the recently concluded International Film Festival of India to Rs 6.5 crore, appears pretentious, if the information sought under the Right to Information Act and authentic documentation are to be believed. The estimated budget prepared by the ESG for the IFFI 2009 stands at Rs 6.48 crore, which is much less than that for the IFFI 2008 – Rs 11.83 crore. But that is only half truth. If the inaugural film festival in Goa, held in the year 2004 is considered, then that film festival had the budget of Rs 6.39 crore, out of which Rs 4.93 crore were spent on cultural programmes like music concerts by noted playback singers, plays performed by actors like Anupam Kher, beach screenings and so on. That makes Rs 1.46 crore as the actual expenditure on IFFI 2004. And to think, IFFI 2009 had no cultural programmes in the city or around the state. It is one thing to say that the ESG has done away with the event management agency, this year, and reduced its budget for IFFI 2009 by half, so as to curtail the expenses, while it is altogether a different equation, wherein nearly 30 to 35 per cent of the IFFI 2009 expenditure is spent on a preferred official festival hotel, which is directly linked to one of the members on the governing council of the ESG. Out of the Rs 6.48-crore budget earmarked for the IFFI 2009, an amount of Rs 1.40 crore is estimated to be spent on hotel accommodation and Rs 8 lakh for the Chief Minister’s dinner party, both in the preferred official festival five-star hotel. This hotel naturally charged separate bills for food and beverages of the guests staying in it during the festival. And then there were regular IFFI–related dinner parties held in this hotel, of course, for additional payment. Well, a chunk of the IFFI 2009 budget will go towards this Resort. And finally, a person linked to the ownership of this hotel is on the Governing Council of the ESG. The matter doesn’t end here. The documents show that the decision about the choice of official festival hotel was taken at a meeting of the governing council held on August 26, 2009, at 5.30 p.m. in the ESG board meeting. Surprisingly, it seems this meeting never took place. In fact, the actual meeting had taken place on the same day, but at 4.00 p.m., and was attended by the finance secretary, Mr Udipta Ray as well as the member linked to the ownership of the preferred hotel, along with some other members. This meeting decided on various matters except the selection of the festival hotel. The ESG papers, however, show that the 5.30 p.m. meeting -- which actually never took place -- was not attended by Mr Ray as well as the member linked to the ownership of the preferred hotel. The ESG papers also point out that the festival hotel was selected at this ‘meeting’, in the absence of the interested party. Furthermore, the ESG, for deciding upon the festival hotel had invited bids from four 5-star hotels namely Hotel Sun N Sand, Taj Group Hotel, Hotel Vivanta Taj and the one, which was eventually selected. This was done as the IFFI 2009 MoU signed between the state and Centre demanded that the hotel chosen as the official festival hotel should have 5-star ranking. Eventually, the ESG’s governing council found that Taj Group Hotel was very far from the festival venue, while Hotel Sun N Sand was unable to offer required 100 rooms. Vivanta Taj however, was very near to the festival venue and offered more benefits for less money. It was surprisingly rejected in preference to the fourth hotel on the grounds of its failure to submit specific certification from the ministry of tourism, government of India, regarding the 5-star status. Interestingly, the CEO of the ESG, Mr Manoj Srivastava notes in the document that the rates of the hotel selected as the official festival hotel were found to be lowest, which is far from being true. The rate quoted by Vivanta Taj Hotel for single/double occupancy, per room in all categories except suites was Rs 8,100, while that quoted by the official festival hotel for single/double occupancy, per room in standard category was Rs 9,625 and in superior/classic category was Rs 10,450. Furthermore, Vivanta Taj Hotel had agreed to offer 50 per cent discount on published tariff for suites, while the official festival hotel had quoted rate of Rs 14,025 for each of the four suites offered. If one observes the comparative bids of the Vivanta Taj Hotel and the selected hotel, then Vivanta Taj Hotel had offered one complimentary suite for the director of IFFI, while the selected hotel had not; the Vivanta Taj Hotel had offered 25 to 30 complimentary cars for transport to the airport as well as an A/c coach, while the selected hotel had offered A/c coach and a luxury car for only suite occupants; the Vivanta Taj Hotel had offered two dedicated computers with Internet connection, while the selected hotel had offered complimentary Internet usage at corporate lounge; the Vivanta Taj Hotel had offered 20 per cent discount on food and beverages, telecommunications, laundry and Spa, while the selected hotel had offered 15 per cent discount on food and beverages, and health club. Incidentally, the Vivanta Taj Hotel had submitted to the ESG certificate of registration of A-category hotel from the department of tourism, Goa, as well as project approval under 5-star category by the ministry of tourism, India. Finally, even after managing to secure the official festival hotel status for IFFI 2009 and getting a branding for itself at the cost of the government, the selected hotel had too many lapses during the dinner parties. For example, the counters serving alcoholic drinks were closed at 10.45 p.m. sharp. The noted Marathi actress and film director, Chitra Palekar as well as many others who had arrived at the inaugural day party at around 10.45 p.m., after attending the opening film, ‘Wheat’ were annoyed when they was refused drinks, stating that the counters close at 11 p.m. A noted music director of yesteryears, who when tried to get some ice-cream at the desserts counter, was told that the ice-cream was over and that there would be no refill of the empty ice-cream container. Source: Over 30% of budget spent on official hotel of IFFI