Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'iit and rti'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Request for Community Support
  • Connect with Community
  • Learn about RTI
  • Website News & Support
  • Read RTI News & Stories
  • RTI Act Critics's RTI Act Critics Topics
  • Fans of RTI India's Fans of RTI India Topics
  • Insurance Consumer's Insurance Consumer Topics
  • Activists of Transparency and Accountability's Activists of Transparency and Accountability Topics
  • Issues with BWSSB's Issues with BWSSB Topics
  • Law+Order-Bangalore-32's Law+Order-Bangalore-32 Topics
  • Issues With Electricity Board's Issues With Electricity Board Topics
  • RTI Activists's RTI Activists Topics
  • YOGA's YOGA Topics
  • help each other's help each other Topics
  • forest and wild life's forest and wild life Topics
  • Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C.'s Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C. Topics
  • RTI Activist+Politics's RTI Activist+Politics Topics
  • hostels and lodging places's hostels and lodging places Topics
  • RTI Activists in Rajasthan.'s RTI Activists in Rajasthan. Topics
  • RTI info warriors in Haryana's RTI info warriors in Haryana Topics
  • DisABILITY Rights and RTI's DisABILITY Rights and RTI Topics
  • Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI.'s Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI. Topics
  • Eco club's Eco club Topics
  • Self Employment in Sport's Self Employment in Sport Topics
  • RTI related to land issue's RTI related to land issue Topics
  • Open SourceTechnology support to RTI's Open SourceTechnology support to RTI Topics
  • TRAP group's TRAP group Topics
  • Odisha RTI Activists's Odisha RTI Activists Topics
  • right to information activists's right to information activists Topics
  • Mumbai's Mumbai Topics
  • Chartered Accountants's Chartered Accountants Topics
  • ngosamachar's ngosamachar Topics
  • Growing INDIA's Growing INDIA Topics
  • we are all friends.'s we are all friends. Topics
  • RTI for Government employees's RTI for Government employees Topics
  • Dhanus - Pending Salaries's Dhanus - Pending Salaries Topics
  • Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors's Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Topics
  • Mahamumbai's Mahamumbai Topics
  • M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech's M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech Topics
  • Corruption's Corruption Topics
  • minority engineering colleges in maharashtra's minority engineering colleges in maharashtra Topics
  • RiGhTs's RiGhTs Topics
  • ram's ram Topics
  • anti corrupt police's anti corrupt police Topics
  • Save Girl in Punjab's Save Girl in Punjab Topics
  • Rent Apartment in US's Rent Apartment in US Topics
  • RTI Kerala's RTI Kerala Topics
  • maharashtra's maharashtra Topics
  • Right Way Of India(RTI)'s Right Way Of India(RTI) Topics
  • Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India's Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India Topics
  • Navi Mumbai's Navi Mumbai Topics
  • electricity curruption in up's electricity curruption in up Topics
  • SHARE n STOCKS trading's SHARE n STOCKS trading Topics
  • Civil Engineers-CAD's Civil Engineers-CAD Topics
  • Nitin Aggarwal's Nitin Aggarwal Topics
  • ex-serviceman activities's ex-serviceman activities Topics
  • SSCC's SSCC Topics
  • Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates's Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates Topics
  • jharkhand RTI activist group's jharkhand RTI activist group Topics
  • Suhail's Suhail Topics
  • govt.servant's govt.servant Topics
  • RTI Uttar pradesh's RTI Uttar pradesh Topics
  • anti-corruption team's anti-corruption team Topics
  • Manaism's Manaism Topics
  • Insurance's Insurance Topics
  • sonitpur datri sewa samity's sonitpur datri sewa samity Topics
  • indian youth manch's indian youth manch Topics
  • HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies's HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies Topics
  • youth's youth Topics
  • aastha's aastha Topics
  • RTI for Citizens's RTI for Citizens Topics
  • learn always's learn always Topics
  • R.T.I.'s R.T.I. Topics
  • Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana's Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana Topics
  • Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna's Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna Topics
  • MBA, business and new entrepreneur.....'s MBA, business and new entrepreneur..... Topics
  • students seeking help's students seeking help Topics
  • RTI Corporate's RTI Corporate Topics
  • Electrical group's Electrical group Topics
  • V4LRights's V4LRights Topics
  • Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool's Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool Topics
  • Gaming's Gaming Topics
  • WE Born to help's WE Born to help Topics
  • help the elderly citizen's help the elderly citizen Topics
  • Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association's Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association Topics
  • Corruption free Country's Corruption free Country Topics
  • surajyam's surajyam Topics
  • kanpurvictims's kanpurvictims Topics
  • Railway Group A Services's Railway Group A Services Topics
  • Encroachment of public property by private giants's Encroachment of public property by private giants Topics
  • Case Status - Anti Corruption's Case Status - Anti Corruption Topics
  • Aam Aadmi (The Common Man)'s Aam Aadmi (The Common Man) Topics
  • Court Marriage in Punjab's Court Marriage in Punjab Topics
  • ALL's ALL Topics
  • Youth India Social Group (YISG)'s Youth India Social Group (YISG) Topics
  • ye kya fandda h's ye kya fandda h Topics
  • mindset's mindset Topics
  • anti corruption's anti corruption Topics
  • activism's activism Topics
  • common's common Topics
  • state group's state group Topics
  • social help group's social help group Topics
  • landlords of uttar pradesh's landlords of uttar pradesh Topics
  • Concern Citizens Forum for India's Concern Citizens Forum for India Topics
  • edusystem's edusystem Topics
  • Ratna Jyoti's Ratna Jyoti Topics
  • development in indian village's development in indian village Topics
  • technovision's technovision Topics
  • Mighty India's Mighty India Topics
  • Against Corporate Fraud's Against Corporate Fraud Topics
  • Stop crime's Stop crime Topics
  • NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti's NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Topics
  • Authenticated Public Plateform's Authenticated Public Plateform Topics
  • shalin's shalin Topics
  • terminater's terminater Topics
  • RTI Wind Energy's RTI Wind Energy Topics
  • Go..................?'s Go..................? Topics
  • Co-Op Housing Society's Co-Op Housing Society Topics
  • we are equal's we are equal Topics
  • Phoenix Deals's Phoenix Deals Topics
  • Theft Cases in chandigarh's Theft Cases in chandigarh Topics
  • Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits's Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits Topics
  • Solar Systems's Solar Systems Topics
  • Get aware about ur Education and related rights's Get aware about ur Education and related rights Topics
  • Save Mumbai's Save Mumbai Topics
  • Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board's Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board Topics
  • ashayen's ashayen Topics
  • unemployment's unemployment Topics
  • Employee Solution's Employee Solution Topics
  • is kanpur university against sc/st's is kanpur university against sc/st Topics
  • prayatna's prayatna Topics
  • Parking woes's Parking woes Topics
  • Helping RTI INDIA web development's Helping RTI INDIA web development Topics


  • Uncategorized
  • Section 18 (1)
  • Section 11
  • For Common Man
  • Section 16
  • Section 2(h)
  • Section 8 (1)(j)
  • Simplified RTI
  • Government Employee and RTI
  • RTI Act 2005
  • Success Stories
  • Exempt Organisation
  • DG IT
  • Section 8 (1) (e)
  • Section 2 (h) (d) (i)
  • Supreme Court Decisions
  • Section 2 (j) (i)
  • Section 2
  • Section 8
  • Section 20
  • Section 19
  • SIC Punjab
  • High Court Decisions
  • Section 9
  • Section 24
  • DoPT
  • RTI Awareness
  • Section 6 (3)
  • Section 6
  • Section 2 (f)
  • Opinion
  • Department of Posts
  • Ministry of Railways
  • Departments
  • Ministry of Home Affairs
  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs
  • Ministry of Law & Justice
  • Government of NCT of Delhi
  • Delhi Police
  • Ministry of Human Resource Development
  • Staff Selection Commission
  • Court Decisions
  • CIC Decisions
  • Activism
  • Section 25
  • University
  • Section 7
  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Section 3
  • RTI Discussions
  • Section 19 (8) (b)
  • Section (1) (d)
  • Section 8 (1) (d)
  • DIrectorate of Education
  • Govt of NCT of Delhi
  • Cooperative Housing Society
  • RTI for School
  • Member RTI
  • Municipal Corporation
  • Ministry of Defence


  • RTI Directory
  • Important RTI Decisions
  • Other Important Court Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts & Circulars


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...

Found 34 results

  1. As reported by Aditi Tandon in tribuneindia.com on 20 may 2011: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110521/main6.htm IIT Kharagpur chargesheets whistleblower prof Reason: He talked to the Press; Charge: He violated conduct Five years ago when Rajeev Kumar, a professor in the Computer Science and Engineering Department of IIT Kharagpur took the RTI route to expose irregularities in the conduct of Joint Entrance Examinations, he knew the opposition he was pitched against. Having exposed many a shocking manipulation in the JEE system and driven the mighty IITs to the Supreme Court for lack of transparency in the conduct of the entrance exams, Kumar today received a five-page chargesheet from his parent institute which initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. It said: “You are alleged to have had unauthorised interaction with the Press for injuring and damaging the reputation of the institute and for bringing unsubstantiated allegations of mass copying in the conduct of IIT exams, thereby deliberately tarnishing the image of the institute, its students, past and present, and its faculty,” reads the first charge against a man whose struggle began when his son took the IIT-JEE but failed, even though he had cleared all the major technical college entrance exams. Kumar, who has been working on draft after draft to reform the IIT system, has been accused: “Often directly and indirectly, through your personal acquaintances, you used your access to both electronic and print media on issues of personal interest without seeking the permission of authorities. Thereby maligning the institutions and exerting huge mental pressure on the faculty and administrative staff. This is a serious violation of conduct rules,” reads the chargesheet. IIT Kharagpur has given Kumar 10 days to respond.. Kumar is famous for exposing the faulty system the IITs had been adopting for fixing cut-offs for JEE. This system resulted in the best scoring students being dropped from the list of successful candidates whereas the low scoring candidates emerged high rankers. He also questioned the validity of Optical Response Sheets used by the IITs, and said they were vulnerable to tampering.
  2. I 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
  3. Aarshay

    If Jains under OBC?

    Dear Sir, I am Jain, studying in 12th standard and going to appear for IIT-JEE 2010 and AIEEE 2010. I wanted to ask you sir whether Jains are covered under OBC category for the above entrance examinations. If yes, how many percentage of seats are reserved and what documentation is required? Regards, Aarshay Jain
  4. Some PSUs like Airports Authority of India mention the eligibilty criteria as : "Minimum 60% marks or equivalent in Bachelor's degree". Some Institutes like IIT Kharagpur awards CGPA and their CGPA is not convertible into percentage of marks as mentioned in the gradesheet. In such a case, I need to file RTI to both organizations. To IIT Kharagpur : "What CGPA can be considered equivalent to 60% marks ?" To Airports Authority of India : "What is the meaning of term equivalent in their eligibility criteria ?" This case concerns me because I am involved in the middle ! I need suggestions for framing the question.
  5. vrijendra

    RTI queires

    Hi: I urgently need someone to file RTI applications regarding IITs and their functioning etc preferably in Bombay/Delhi regards vrijendra.
  6. Hi, This week I submitted one RTI application to IIT Roorkee for geting information on the WIFI infrastructure details. Below, I have attached the scanned copy of application for your comments. A_RTI_APPLICATION_17JAN2012_SIGNED.pdf Regards, Syed
  7. Can any one help me to provide that what is the Fees of RTI for getting information from IIT Kanpur, IIT Mumbai, IIT Roorkee, IIT Kharagpur and NITs.
  8. ganpat1956

    Explain JEE cut-offs, CIC warns IIT

    New Delhi, Aug. 7: The Indian Institutes of Technology still cannot explain the method they followed in setting the admission criteria in 2006 — a whole year after the process. They have so far given four answers, some contradictory and some impossible to verify. The Telegraph had on Monday reported an allegation by some candidates’ parents that the IITs had flouted their stated procedure — divulged under the Right to Information Act (RTI) — for setting the cut-off marks for physics, chemistry and math. That procedure was one of two contradictory explanations the IITs have given the parents. They have now given a third explanation to Calcutta High Court, where one parent has challenged the 2006 admissions. An IIT administrator involved with the 2006 Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) took position No. 4 when contacted by The Telegraph. He said “some fixed process had to exist” but had no idea what it was. Replying to the parents’ RTI application last December, five months after the exam was over, the IITs had said there was “no fixed procedure” to determine cut-off marks. That reply was issued by D. Gunasekaran, registrar of IIT Kharagpur, the institute that oversaw the implementation of JEE 2006. The second answer came five months later after the Central Information Commission (CIC) intervened. The parents were given a definite formula, explained in this newspaper on Monday. Calculations based on that formula — and checked by this newspaper — show the cut-offs for physics, chemistry and math should have been 22, 26 and 24. But the cut-offs the IITs had actually used were 48, 55 and 37. They had also set an aggregate cut-off of 154. The explanation to the high court tries to address this problem by offering a slightly amended version: formula II. According to this, the marks of students who scored zero or less in any subject — the JEE awards negative marks for wrong answers — were not considered while determining the subject cut-offs. This would raise the cut-offs. But one cannot verify if formula II exactly explains the gap between the official cut-offs and the parents’ cut-offs unless the IITs reveal the marks scored in each subject by all two lakh candidates. The institutes had flatly refused to do so when the parents asked for it under RTI, later releasing only the marks of the top 32,000 under CIC pressure. Several independent statisticians told this newspaper that neither formula I (the one provided under CIC pressure) nor formula II “seems feasible”. Both methods could —and probably would — allow the majority of candidates who sat the exam to qualify. This is because either formula would let in “nearly 70 per cent” of the candidates considered while calculating the subject cut-offs, said Anish Sarkar, who teaches at the Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi. Ravindra Bapat, who heads ISI Delhi, and his Chennai-based colleague B.L.S. Prakash Rao gave a slightly different figure: “definitely over 50 per cent”. Since the first formula considers all two lakh who sat the exam (as explained in Monday’s report), this means up to 1.40 lakh students could make the subject cut-offs. The second formula only leaves out those with negative scores, and unless their number runs into several tens of thousands, even this amended procedure would not help. Since the IITs cannot have known in advance how many students would end up with negative marks, why would they choose this method prior to the exam, the experts asked. With such huge numbers clearing the subject cut-offs, it would be the aggregate cut-off — based on the around 6,000 seats available — that alone would make the difference. Why should the IITs then set subject cut-offs at all, saddling themselves with a useless and cumbersome intermediate process, the statisticians asked. A selection process that initially weeds out less than 50 per cent seems incongruent with the objective of choosing 6,000 students, which is just 3 per cent, they said. Shishir Dube, who headed the Joint Admission Board that decided the policies for JEE 2006, initially said the cut-offs were set by another body, the Joint Implementation Committee. When told that all policy matters are decided by the board, the former IIT Kharagpur director agreed that a definite procedure “must” exist. “But that must have been set before my time (as board chief). We didn’t decide any procedure,” said Dube, now a faculty member at IIT Delhi. Gunasekaran declined comment. The Telegraph - Calcutta : Nation
  9. Saurabhshrista

    About iit and aieee

    Hello, sir kya bsegwaliormp board se passed student iit aur aieee xam ke liye eligible hai ya nhi...means 12ka result iit and aieee me chalega ya nahi.
  10. jagatease

    RTI Reply Search

    I want to find out the unfilled seats in IITs, IIMs and the Medical Colleges across India in the past 5 years. Filing individual RTIs now would be time consuming, and I'm sure multiple RTIs must have been filed in this regard previously. Where do I find the replies to the aforementioned RTIs ? I have searched as much as possible. Please help.
  11. As reported in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 05 April 2011: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7879582.cms IIT-JEE to put scanned answer sheets on website MUMBAI: Each year, the joint entrance exam result buries the Indian Institutes of Technology under the Right To Information applications and legal cases. Lakhs of those who don't make it to the IITs demand copies of their answer scripts, forcing the engineering colleges to usher in transparency. For years, every RTI application was rejected, every court case favoured the IITs. For the first time now, the 2011 edition of the JEE will put out scanned copies of every student's answer sheet. The exam will be held on Sunday and it will be taken by 4.85 lakh candidates , up from last year's 4.72 lakh. "Scanned images of the optical response sheets (ORS) with the candidates' details and their responses will be displayed on the JEE website after May 25, 2011," IIT-Kanpur's director Sanjay Dhande said. Like every year, IIT-Kanpur will put up key answers, allowing students, for the first time, to compare their performance, and see where they have gone wrong. IMPORTANT DATES April 10, 2011: JEE exam May 15, 2011: Display of model solutions to JEE 2011 May 25, 2011: Declaration of results JEE 2011 After May 25, 2011: Display of scanned images of ORS May 30-June 13, 2011: Online filling of choices open to all the qualified candidates June 08-10 : Medical examination and counselling for qualified PD candidates (the schedule will be announced later on the IITwebsites) June 10 : Architecture/Design Aptitude Test June 17 : Last date of receipt of filled and duly signed choice sheets
  12. This video was created by India Inspired team (IIT Kanpur) for publicity of Right to Information Act (RTI) in IIT Kanpur Campus during its cultural festival Antaragni '06. Later this video was aired on MTV on the show 'MTV Kya Baat Hai' in 2006.
  13. Came across this very strange case, while going through the CIC orders. Found i interesting to mention on the forum for further discussion of members. http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_WB_A_2010_000446_M_51201.pdf Applicant filed RTI with IIT Mumbai in April 2010 asking for: a) Provide*certified* list*of*committee*members*of* IIT*JEE*2010*representing*each* IIT.*Also provide*copies*of*executive*order,*if*any,*appointing*such*committee.***Also*indicate*how*the Chairman*is*appointed. b) Provide*certified*copies*of *representations*received*regarding*errors* in*paper*of * IIT*JEE 2010. *Also*provide* copies*of *decisions* taken* to*normalize* the*effect * to* such*error * in publishing/interpretation. c) Provide*certified*copies*of*file*with*file*notings*where*the*decision*to*delete*any*centre()**as designated*centre*for*conduct*of*IIT*JEE* *2010*was*taken.* *Kindly*also*provide*copies*of any*inquiry*conducted*in*this*regard. d) Provide*certified*copies*of*minutes*of*meeting*of*IIT*JEE*2010*committee. The Public Information Officer, IIT Mumbai replied: a) &*d)*Application*has*been*forwarded*to*IIT*Madras. b) These*details*can*not*be*provided*as*these*are*personal*information*of*candidates*and*can*not be*revealed*without*prior*permission.*Decision*by*JAB*on*these*errors*is*pending*as*of*today, thus*the*information*is*not*available. c) Decision*to*add*or*delete*any*centre*for*JEE*is*taken*by*Chairman*and*Vice*Chairman*of*JEE keeping*in*mind*the*logistics,*number*of*candidates*writing*from*that*city,*safety,*security*and sanctity*of*JEE*operation.**Since,*these*details*are*very*center*specific,*general*reply*can*not*be provided.**However,*for*any*specific*center*these*details*can*be*provided*on*request. Further, the Public Information Officer of IIT Madras replied (for the transferred part of the application): enclosing*List*of*JIC**members*of*IIT*JEE**2010**. He*stated*that*the*Chairman*is*appointed*by*the*Director*in*consultation*with*the*Dean*Academic Courses*and*with*regard*to*point*d*)*he*stated*that*as*the*information*called*for*is*confidential*under*8 (1)*(e)**of*the*RTI*Act**is**fiduciary*in*nature*and*hence*exempted*from*disclosure The representation of IIT Mumbai and Madras, during the second appeal, went off at an tangent: a)The*JEE*examination* is*conducted*on* the*second*Sunday*of *every*April.*The*operations* for* the same*starts*in*the*first*week*of*August*of*the*previous*year.*For*eg.*the*operations*for*JEE*2011 started*on*first*week*of*August*2010. b)The* JEE* committees * among* other * things, * discusses * the* detailed* logistics * of * holding* the* JEE examination.*The*sequencing*and*scheduling*of*each*operation*are*required*to*be*confidential*to protect*the*security*&*sanctity*of*the*JEE*exam.* c) The*modus * operandi * regarding * question* paper * setting, * production* – * printing, * proof * correction, bundling,*packing*etc.,* transport* to*various* Institutes*and*such*other*details*as*associated*with these*operations*are*a*part*of*the*minutes*as*are*software/server*details*for*result*preparation*and Counseling.*These*are*highly*confidential*in*nature,*and*other*than*finer*details,*may*not*change on*a*yearly*basis.* d)A*public*disclosure*of*these*details*for*any*of*the*previous*year*may*jeopardize*future*conduct*of*the JEE*examination.*For*example*even* the*dates*of *shipment *of *confidential *materials*cannot*be made*public.*These*are*currently*part*of*the*JEE*2010*minutes,*and*for*JEE*2011,*as*dates*do*not change*by*more*than*a*day,*the*same*shall*hold*good.* e)Similarly, * the * details * of * our * computer * servers * etc * used * for * confidential * operations * and * data transmission*are*not*to*be*made*public.*These*are*indeed*part*of*the*JEE*committee*minutes.** f) The*JEE*committee*minutes*are*circulated*only*to*the*committee*members*with*mutual*trust*that*it*is not*disclosed,*as*if*it*is*disclosed,*everyone*can*be*held*responsible.* g)The*final*recommendations*of*these*committees,*which*are*necessary*for*public*consumption,*are made*public*through*the*Information*Brochure,*Counseling*Brochure*and*periodical*updates*which are*uploaded*on*the*website.** h) It*may*be*mentioned*here*that*as*observed*in*the*Right*to*Information*Act,*2005,*Sec*8,*pg*39,*para 3,* in* the*case*of*Selection*of*candidates,* that* *"Recommendations*of * the*Committees*may*be provided*but*not*their*detailed*report*for*they*are*of*fiduciary*nature",*In*the*present*instance*also, it*is*emphasized*that*the*non*disclosure*of*JEE*Committee*meetings*is*covered*under*Section*8 (1)*(e)*of*the*RTI*Act.* i) Further,*it*is*also*the*case*that*the*Sections*8*(1)*(a),*8*(1)*(g)*and*8*(1)*(d)*are*applicable*in*this context,*as*these*are*information and the CIC ordered: The*Commission*on*careful*consideration*of*the* *submission*of*the*Respondent*is*of*the*opinion*that the*disclosure*of*information* *containing*details*as*given*in* *points*b,*c,*d,*e*is*indeed* *confidential*in nature,*the*disclosure*of*which*is*denied*under*Section*8(1)(a)*of*the*RTI*Act*as*it**has*the*potential*to lead*to*incitement*of*an*offence*and*may*also*adversely*affect*the*economic*interests*of*the*state*if there* *happens* to*be*a* * *breakdown*of * the*examination*system. * * * It * *was*also*observed* that * the disclosure*has**no*relationship*with*any*public*activity*or*interest.***The*Public*Authority,*therefore*may not*disclose*the*minutes*of*meeting*of*IIT*JEE*2010*committee*to*the*Appellant.*However,*the*final recommendations*of*the*Committee*if*the*Appellant*so*desires,*may*be*provided*to*him*by*3*March, 2011. ======= How are minutes of meeting "fiduciary" in nature and covered under 8(1)(e) ? Does the suo-motu disclosure of IIT say under Sec 4(1)(b)(viii) that such minutes will not be disclosed ? How does 8(1)(a) come into the picture ? What imaginary economic interests of the state are affected by disclosing the information asked by the applicant ? How does 8(1)(g) come into play when the IIT JEE exam was over and finshed even before the RTI Application was filed ? This decision at least beats me completely. There is something much more here than meets the eye. Either someone trying to hide a big blunder or trying to shield a corrupt practice.
  14. As reported by ENS in expressindia.com on 05 June 2008: Troubles galore for IIT-K over suicides - ExpressIndia.Com Troubles galore for IIT-K over suicides Kanpur, June 4 The Indian Institute of Technology-Kanpur (IIT-K) authorities may soon find themselves in a soup over the growing number of suicides in the campus. The institute has seen two fresh suicides over the last two months. And while in one case, they face an RTI query, the other may end in the filing of a criminal case against them. The man contemplating a criminal case is Sunder Lal Kureel — father of Prashant Kureel, who committed suicide on April 18. And following the recent suicide of Toya Chatterjee, Omendra Bharat, an IIT alumnus and chief Bharat Punarnirman Dal (BPD), has moved a plea under Right To Information Act. A first year BTech student, Kureel had hanged himself in his hostel room. His father holds the IIT-K authorities responsible. Demanding a CBI inquiry on the issue, he said that mental stress along with ragging and prevailing casteism was responsible for his son’s death. “The IIT-K authorities are not going to mend their ways and it will result to more suicides in the future,” Kureel told The Indian Express. The prevailing faulty system of administration was responsible for the high number of suicides, said Kureel, who is a regional director in the Office of National Savings Institute, Ministry of Finance. “After attending an official meeting in New Delhi on June 6, I will return to Kanpur and file a criminal case against the IIT-K authorities.” He said he has already chalked out the procedure with his advocate. “I have decided to raise my voice against the IIT-K authorities so some lives can be saved.” The RTI plea of Bharat is the other concern for the institute authorities. He has questioned the criteria of grading the students in semester exams. His contention is also that action is required against teachers if a large number of their students are getting F-grade (fail). Another important point included is regarding the Feedback Form filled by students at the end of each semester. “Has any action ever been initiated against any teacher on basis of the Feedback Form?” Bharat asked. He pointed out that though Toya was a brilliant student, no one is aware why she failed two semester exams. “She had cleared the CAT exams and had secured 1,570 marks out of 1,600 in the Graduate Record Examination, which indicates about her educational skills,” he said. “I too have suffered due to the poor grading system. One grade down means a reduction of 20 per cent mark in a subject at IIT-K,” he said. “In other IITs, a lower grade means a 10 per cent reduction.”
  15. IIT-H sacks gay activist Ashley Tellis as reported by Nikhila Henry in Times of India, TNN, HYDERABAD: Jun 11, 2010 In an AMU redux south of the Vindhyas, Indian Institute of Technology (Hyderabad) management sacked gay rights activist and faculty member Ashley Tellis, apparently discomfited by his sexual orientation. The academic, with around 20 years of experience, was shown the door last fortnight less than a year after joining IIT-H. Being on probation, Tellis's services were terminated summarily. However, reliable sources said he was asked to leave for his "unlawful behaviour" and "deviant mischief". IIT-Hyderabad director Uday Desai did not take calls and his office said he would be available only after June 21. It's learnt that Tellis's exit from IIT was being planned by the management ever since AMU's S R Siras was sacked for being gay in February this year. Tellis has filed a right to information (RTI) application seeking reasons behind his sudden termination and intends to have a face-off with IIT-H. Tellis was assistant professor with the liberal arts department and is a well-known voice in the gay rights movement in the country. A published author, Tellis has a PhD from Cambridge University and a long teaching career. He faced strong resistance at IIT-H from the day he joined. "Ashley's entry was controversial with several groups among IIT faculty not wanting him in. There was internal bickering and resistance right from the beginning," said a source. Prior to Tellis's appointment, several faculty members had objected to his appointment. "There were group mails sent against his appointment, asking the IIT director not to appoint him," a source said. Some faculty members blamed Tellis for being too candid in discussing gay issues on campus. His article on `man-boy' love in a national daily further ruffled feathers. "The institute has a humanities wing but it is meant for technical education. It was found that students were extremely annoyed with Tellis's behaviour," said a faculty member. However, a number of students disagreed with the faculty members. "He was one of the best teachers. Not many students had problems with him until the administration and other faculty members began asking questions about Tellis's behaviour in classroom," said a student. Students were even told to "be careful" with Tellis and "report abuse", the student said. When contacted, university authorities refused comment saying only the director was authorized to answer these questions. "Tellis is no longer with us. We do not know whether he was sacked or left on his own," said an official in the director's office. A scan of IIT-Hyderabad website revealed that Tellis's name has been deleted from the faculty list. Director in charge U V Varadaraju, when insisted upon by TOI, said, "Prof Desai is out of station." Sudheer Chella Rajan, HoD of Liberal Arts Department and Tellis's boss could not be reached despite attempts. Tellis's close associates said that this is not the first time he was targeted for being gay. He had complained of being forced to quit or being terminated for being articulate about gay rights even earlier. His stints at Bombay University, where he taught in 1991, and later at St Stephen's College, Delhi, too weren't pleasant for Tellis, and he quit both jobs. "Tellis was under constant pressure of being sacked even during his stint at English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad," said one of his associates. IIT-H sacks gay activist Ashley Tellis - India - The Times of India
  16. karira

    IIT-Madras defies CIC order

    As reported in hindustantimes.com on 15 October 2010: IIT-Madras defies CIC order - Hindustan Times IIT-Madras defies CIC order Indian Institute of Technology Madras has refused to disclose details of this year’s Joint Entrance Examination despite Central Information Commission orders that have forced the IITs to make these details for earlier JEEs public. IIT Kharagpur professor Rajeev Kumar had asked IIT Madras for details of marks of all students who appeared for the test to analyse the examination that contained numerous errors, under the RTI Act. But IIT Madras that organised the 2010 JEE has refused to do so. The CIC, had ordered the IITs to make public such details public for the JEEs from 2006 till 2009. It was the analysis of the JEE 2006 data that enabled Kumar to expose that 994 deserving candidates were denied seats.
  17. Came across this very strange interim order of the CIC wherein the CIC has expressed distress at the fact that truth is not being revealed before the Commission. Applicant asked for information from IIT Kgp. There was a delay in providing information and a Show Cause notice was issued based on the applicants Complaint. During the hearing on the "Show Cause" notice, the PIO and FAA of IIT Kgp expressed that the delay in providing information was due to the "deemed" PIO not providing the information on time. The deemed PIO was issued a "Show Cause" notice. As per the deemed PIO, he had only been asked for information very late and had provided it in time. He also debunked all other claims of the PIO/FAA. The CIC has now called the PIO, FAA and the deemed PIO for a face to face hearing on 24 May 2010 to get to the bottom of the matter. The interim order is attached. SG-19042010-02.pdf
  18. As reported by Shamsheer Yousaf in expressbuzz.com on 19 October 2009: Should IIT aspirantsâ?? details be disclosed? Should IIT aspirants’ details be disclosed? BANGALORE: The Central Information Commission (CIC) will now decide whether details of candidates appearing for the IIT Joint Entrance Examination such as marks, names, addresses etc can be exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information(RTI) Act. The CIC will tackle the question on November 6, when it will hear a case to decide whether IIT Guwahati — the organizing JEE for 2009 — should disclose this data. The case is being viewed as an important test of IIT-JEE’s credibility, as disclosure of 2006 JEE data showed that formulas for calculating subject cutoffs did not tally, and irregularities were alleged in marks scored by wards of faculty members. Barua responds Meanwhile, responding to TNIE’s report (Ask for data on JEE and mum’s the word at IIT-G, Oct 13) on the nondisclosure of JEE data , IIT Guwahati Director Gautam Barua has said that he had offered the appellant data for scrutiny with the names made anonymous. IIT Guwahati, the organizing JEE for 2009, had refused to provide marks and personal details of candidates on a CD as requested by Prof Rajeev Kumar of IIT Kharagpur under the Right to Information Act. Barua’s response referred to an offer made by him, in an email to Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, to make available five fields for each candidate -- candidate serial no,candidate category, marks in physics, chemistry and mathematics. He also clarified that the registration number would not be provided as this could be used to identify which region the candidate was appearing from. Earlier Barua claimed that the data could be misused by coaching centres for planning and targeting students. In response Kumar said that the disclosure of similar data in the past had revealed bungling/ irregularities, which showed that wards of influential people including faculty wards had scored very high marks. The Central Information Commission has now scheduled a hearing for November 6 to hear the case. Email interaction A summary of emails between IC Shailesh Gandhi, Kumar and Barua On October 2, Prof Rajeev Kumar files non-compliance of CIC order with IC Shaliesh Gandhi against IIT-G IIT-G Director Dr Gautam Barua respoonds with apprehensions of misuse of data by coaching centres. IC Shailesh Gandhi asks Barua to provide the fields of data that IITG has in its possession, and asks disclosure of which fields would constitute invasion of privacy. Barua suggests making available only marks of candidates, candidate serial number, and category. No registration number will be provided. On October 3, IC Shailesh Gandhi tells Barua that in light of previous decision, there was no case for not disclosing fields. Tells Barua a hearing can be scheduled. Barua cites privacy violation, issues of profit-making, and property rights. Kumar replies that making an argument that IIT wishes to make profit and therefore against disclosure of data is against the RTI Act and transparency.
  19. Hi, I am new to the forum and i really hope i find some answers here. problem background: I am an alumni of IIT kharagpur, I passed out of Mtech program during recent academic year. IIT kharagpur awards silver medals each year to the outgoing department toppers which by virtue of being one, i stood to get. The medal was declared, they got it made; The medal being small in size requires names to be written in abbreviated format where the student's name and father's name are abbreviated keeping surname in full. However there is a problem. In Maharashtra Gujarat and some states, the official format of the name for all academic records is SURNAME -> FIRST NAME -> FATHER'S NAME; whereas in many other states in north India it is written as FIRSTNAME -> FATHER's NAME -> SURNAME. So the name on my medal has my SURNAME(abbreviated) -> FIRST_NAME (abbreviated) -> father's name (complete), which gives no clue as to whom really the medal is awarded to. So when i went to the academic section querying about the name, i was told there is an official rule of indian government about abbreviating the names. While they had made us verify our names in complete apriori, my consent on the short form of my name was never taken. And on top of it, they refused to change the name. So my question is, can i query The IIT administration under the RTI, and ask * is there any rule / law by govt of india on abbreviation of names have they followed? if yes, what is it? * Have they taken my due consent on the short version of my name? * If it is possible reissue me a medal and if it is so, what procedure is to be followed; if not, then the reason for it. I am really want to know if this is valid case for RTI invocation. I think IIT's being government institutes come under RTI umbrella. I also want to know about the procedure for making an application (if indeed this is a valid case). THANK YOU SHRIPAD
  20. As reported by CHARU SUDAN KASTURI at telegraphindia.com on July 8 , 2009 New Delhi, July 7: Subramanian Swamy is now haunting Kapil Sibal’s human resource development ministry with persistent demands for dues he claims are unpaid from his days at IIT Delhi, after years of mounting legal challenges to Sonia Gandhi and Jayalalithaa. Almost two decades after he ended a tumultuous relationship with the IIT where he taught economics — to become a cabinet minister in the Chandra Shekhar government — Swamy has accused the HRD ministry of withholding his dues. Swamy has in the past led high-voltage campaigns against UPA chairperson Sonia’s “foreign origins” and former Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalithaa’s alleged corruption, and has stalled the Sethusamudram project. Through a series of Right to Information Act appeals, Swamy has now demanded all HRD ministry notings on his dues from 1969 to 1991 when he taught at IIT Delhi. “If the IIT or the HRD ministry think they can get away with harassing me, they’re messing with the wrong person,” Swamy, 69, told The Telegraph from Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he is a visiting professor at Harvard University. Swamy said he may soon approach the courts — like he did while challenging Sonia and Jayalalithaa — to get his dues along with the interest for the entire period he has had to wait. The Janata Party president said he had written to HRD minister Sibal challenging him, as a lawyer, to defend the ministry’s actions in allegedly denying him his dues. His appeals, under standard RTI applications, have triggered panic at the ministry because officers have discovered that they no longer possess records of Swamy’s dues from his IIT days. “Given Swamy’s history, with Sonia Gandhi, Jayalalithaa and others, we are naturally very concerned because we fear he could entangle us legally, too,” a senior official in the ministry said. Swamy was sacked in 1972 as professor, three years after joining the IIT. He alleges he was the target of a political conspiracy because he publicly opposed Indira Gandhi’s bank nationalisation and other “socialist” government policies and challenged pro-government “communists” at the neighbouring Jawaharlal Nehru University. He challenged his dismissal legally, and in 1991 won a case at the Tis Hazari district courts which dubbed his sacking illegal and asked the IIT to repay him his emoluments for the intervening period. But the IIT, Swamy alleges, refused to pay him the dues ordered by the court. During the period when he was out of a teaching job in India, Swamy often taught at Harvard. “The IIT argued that they will deduct the amount I earned at Harvard from my dues. But given that I earned in dollars at Harvard, if they deduct what I earned there, I will be paying IIT and not the other way around. It is ridiculous,” Swamy said. But his requests have left the HRD ministry stumped and nervous as they cannot find the file containing notings related to Swamy’s dues. “It is so old that the file has probably been destroyed. But we don’t know what to write in our reply because we fear we could get into trouble,” an official said. Under the RTI Act, enacted late in 2005, information up to 20 years in the past can be sought. So, technically, the HRD ministry can argue that it is essentially required to provide Swamy with information only from 1989 onwards. Further, since the RTI Act came only in 2005, several government offices have in the past argued that they could not have been expected to retain files from before the enactment of the law. But the Central Information Commission — the apex referee on the act — has on numerous occasions lambasted the latter argument and demanded that the government agency concerned at least provide proof of destruction of documents. The HRD ministry, however, does not even have any record of destroying the file with the information sought by Swamy — raising concern among officials. But it is Swamy’s reputation that haunts ministry officials, they accepted. For a decade between 1993 and 2003, Swamy legally hounded two-time chief minister Jayalalithaa, accusing her of corruption in procuring land from the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation as chief minister between 1991-96. He has also accused Sonia of misleading the nation over her citizenship, in petitions to the Supreme Court. In 2007, the Supreme Court stayed the Sethusamudram project to build a shipping channel through the Palk Straits on the basis of a petition by Swamy. This case is still sub judice. Source: The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Nation | Swamy’s latest battle: how to get IIT dues
  21. Yes! They are available for FREE download on TheExamPapers.com - Building Confidence Towards Examinations : The Only hub of ICSE,CBSE,IGCSE,TyBcom Papers
  22. New Delhi, August 2: THE Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the IIT Delhi administration on Thursday to reinstate its suspended Registrar Col Rajendra Singh within two working days. Information Commissioner O P Kejriwal said it appears the institute director suspended Singh to settle “personal scores”. IIT Delhi Director Prof Surendra Prasad had suspended Singh for non-payment of a penalty imposed on him by the CIC in an earlier case. Delivering his order, Kejriwal said the HRD Secretary should take suitable action against Prasad, emphasising that he had “exceeded his authority”. According to the order, Singh should be back in office latest by Tuesday. The CIC had in an earlier case imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on Singh. In case of non-payment the amount was to be deducted from his salary. The CIC noted that it had subsequently received the complete payment in two instalments. Its Thursday order came on a complaint submitted by Singh on Monday that he had been victimised and suspended by the institute. The CIC said the way he (Prasad) acted it appears to be a means of settling personal scores. Kejriwal said the CIC had directed the institute only to recover the penalty from Singh’s salary and in no way empowered the director to suspend him by way of administrative action. Reprimanding Prasad for misusing the CIC’s order and the RTI, Kejriwal has recommended action against him. Singh was suspended last Friday, a day after he approached the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) seeking an investigation into “misappropriation of funds at IIT Delhi”. Singh had sought investigations into an order issued to him by the IIT administration for release of Endowment Funds for foreign junkets of faculty members during the first week of July this year. Reinstate Registrar by Tuesday, CIC directs IIT Delhi
  23. As reported by Manoj Mitta of TNN in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 11 October 2008: Bad to worse: In IIT with just 5% in JEE physics-India-The Times of India Bad to worse: In IIT with just 5% in JEE physics More Pictures NEW DELHI: In the IIT joint entrance examination of 2007, a score of 15% in mathematics was enough to make it to IIT-Kanpur. If you found that shocking, look at this year's figures. In 2008, students could join IIT-Kharagpur despite scoring no more than 5% in physics. For the second year running, the reduction of subject cutoffs to single digits under a procedure introduced in 2007 has allowed less meritorious candidates to slip into IITs even in the general category. This flies in the face of the seemingly reassuring statistics put out by IIT-Roorkee on its website in August stating that in the 2008 JEE conducted by it, the marks obtained by the last admitted candidate in the general category were 63 out of 162 in maths (39%), 72 in physics (44%) and 45 in chemistry (28%). The website glossed over the fact that some of the admitted candidates who obtained higher aggregates (and, therefore, higher ranks) actually scored much lower marks in one or the other subject than those scored by the last admitted candidate. The lowest marks in individual subjects among the candidates admitted to IITs this year are 10 in maths (6%), 8 in physics (5%) and 15 in chemistry (9%), an RTI query has revealed. Consider a sample of the anomalies that have emerged from the latest JEE following the drop in subject cutoffs (the first filter in the selection process) to 5 in maths, 0 in physics and 3 in chemistry. * If the last admitted candidate had an all-India rank (AIR) of 6,773 scoring respectable percentages in all three subjects, the one who scored just 6% in maths obtained a much better AIR, 5,308, which was good enough to get him admission to IIT-Kharagpur or Roorkee. * The candidate who scored just 5% in physics attained an AIR of 4,999, which could get him into IIT-Kharagpur, Guwahati or Roorkee, missing out on Kanpur by 3 marks and Bombay by 6 marks. * The candidate who scored 9% in chemistry obtained an AIR of 2,903, which could help him join any of the more sought after IITs. Several such anomalies have come to light because of the data disclosed by IIT-Roorkee in response to the RTI application from a computer sciences professor in IIT Kharagpur, Rajeev Kumar. Though the subject cutoffs in the much-touted JEE have been in single digits since 2007 (as reported first in TOI), the compromise in the quality of intake has worsened this year. A comparison of the lowest marks obtained by admitted candidates in individual subjects shows a drop across the board in these two years (see Table I). If such ridiculously low marks have been fetching IIT seats in the last two years, it is because, under the procedure introduced in 2007, the subject cutoffs are 20 percentile, which means the best marks obtained by the bottom 20% of the candidates in each subject. The 2007 procedure followed IIT Kharagpur's embarrassment before the Central Information Commission because of its inability to explain the basis for the much higher subject cutoffs in the previous year's JEE, which had been conducted by it. Adopted as it was on the rebound, the 2007 procedure adopting 20 percentile as subject cutoffs has turned out to be imprudent as there was no dearth of candidates in 2008, for instance, scoring much higher marks in each subject (see Table II). Since JEE involves negative marking, the 20 percentile formula has yielded single-digit cutoffs which have opened scope for candidates performing disastrously in one of the subjects being admitted on the strength of their marks in the other two. This has proved to be unfair to those who performed consistently in all the three subjects and yet lost out simply because their aggregates were slightly less. From the data that is available on all three JEEs held since RTI came into force, IITs could have easily averted such incongruities in their admission procedure had they taken the subject cutoffs as the least marks of the top 20% candidates instead of the highest marks of the bottom 20% candidates (see Table III). This is because when the 80 percentile formula is applied to the data of the last three years, the subject cutoffs turn out to be more meaningful (as they range from 21 to 37 marks) and at the same time they yield more than enough candidates to be included in the AIR list on the basis of their aggregates (since about 8,000 are currently ranked, IITs will have almost three times that many to choose from). Given their global reputation, IITs would do well to rationalize their cutoff procedure for the 2009 JEE in the light of the anomalies that have surfaced in the last two years with the 20 percentile formula.
  24. Govt blurs IIT stand against faculty quota as reported by Hemali Chhapia,TNN | 6 Oct 2008 MUMBAI: Censorship. That is what directors of the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) are currently fighting, after the Union human resource development ministry edited out their opinion against faculty reservation. Access to the minutes of the meeting of the standing committee of the IIT council (SCIC), through a right to information query, reveals that the opinion of the seven directors was cleverly masked by the HRD ministry. The minutes left out one of the most crucial points aired by the IIT chiefs — that they were totally against the introduction of reservation in the recruitment policy for faculty members. The SCIC meeting on July 4, chaired by C N R Rao, principal scientific adviser to the PM, was called to discuss the issue of introducing SC, ST and OBC reservation in recruiting faculty members. However, despite the directors' opposition, the minutes did not incorporate their view. The HRD ministry had sent a diktat to all IITs on June 9, asking them to set aside 15%, 7.5% and 27% quotas in teaching positions for the SC, ST and OBC categories. IITs currently have reservations for the backward category for administrative posts — from attendants to the level of deputy registrar. However, there is no reservation for faculty members. The SCIC meeting was chaired by C N R Rao, principal scientific adviser to the Prime Minister, and attended by the seven IIT directors, R P Agarwal (MHRD secretary), V S Ramamurthy (chairman, board of governors, IIT Delhi), M Anandakrishnan (chairman, board of governors, IIT Kanpur), N K Sinha (MHRD joint secretary) and Seema Raj (director, technical education) among others. The ministry order read, "It has been decided to implement reservation for SC, ST, OBC, in recruitment to teaching (faculty) posts in IITs with immediate effect." For subjects in science and technology, there would be reservation for posts of lecturers and assistant professors. In other areas, like management, social sciences and humanities, reservation would be applicable up to the professor level. The government ruling allows the IITs to de-reserve the posts after a year, if they do not get filled "despite all efforts". The SCIC minutes of the July meeting, a copy of which is available with this paper, only stated that the directors did not want a distinction made between faculty of science and technology and that of social sciences and humanities while omitting the fundamental opposition to reservation in faculty. "This (the minutes) clearly means that the directors were fine with reservation. However, we were and we (still) are not fine with reservation in recruiting faculty members," said a director. Further, as the last option, the minutes stated that the IIT directors had demanded that their institutes be given special recognition as institutes of national importance. The topic of faculty reservation concluded by stating: "The government of India can take decisions on policies (sic) matters including reservations on its own." Shocked at the way their opinions were kept out, IIT directors have taken up the matter with the SCIC chairman, who in turn has written to the ministry for a modification in the minutes. Govt blurs IIT stand against faculty quota-India-The Times of India
  25. In a recent decision/order, CIC seems to have allowed the disclosure of IIT-JEE key and the answer sheets. The order is not very clear. It is attached to this post. Members can read it and decide for themselves. OK-15052008-20.pdf
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy