|
| No. |
Message |
Response |
| 1 |
the now postponed seminar on Muslim education has spent more than 10 lakhs on barricades, it has also paid air fare of the minister Arjun Singh through a cheque in advance, kindly file RTI to ascertain the truth.
why does not AMU pay the 6th pay arrears to its teachers? whereas other central universities have done the payment. could you pursue it through RTI |
We are making this comment public for all to deliberate |
|
| 2 |
Dr. Munir Khan, naturotheripist invited for extnesion lecture. He has not given satisfactory answer in the Audiotorium of Tibbiya college. can u excercise to ask question under RTI who invited this fraud and illiterate scientist. RTI group please ask this question |
I think that it would be better if you yourself come forward and ask. Every citizen has the right to ask under RTI. However, if you are really interested in the matter, pl collect docs that support your statement and file RTI. |
|
| 3 |
However, he rewrote entire thesis in 2005 and finally submitted it at the Dept. of Wildlife Sciences on 22.09.2005. The new chairman of the Dept. forwarded the thesis to the office of the Controller through the Dean Faculty of Life Sciences.
The Vice Chancellor appointed examiners of Hilaluddin on 20.12.2005 on his request of 13.05.2005
Meanwhile Hilaluddin had become ex-student, so the issue of an ex-student submitting his Ph.D. thesis itself took two years to settle.
At last, “on media intervention VC granted permission to petitioner to submit thesis as an ex-student on 04.11.2007.” As Hilaluddin had already submitted the thesis at Dept. years ago, the Dean forwarded it to Controller for onward transmission.
“Indian examiners submitted report on 28.11.2007 and 22.02.2008 and foreign examiner on 28.11.2007. All examiners unanimously recommended awarding of Ph.D. degree to Hilaluddin. Their reports were sent to Dean who recommended for viva voce. Controller sent personal file petitioner to the VC (Ref. No. 3756/VCO/25.09.08). On return of file, Controller ordered Chairman for holding viva voce of petitioner on 04.09.2008. (The Petitioner has got all the above given information by the Right to Information Act).
But Hilaluddin did not agree to this order of the Controller. He says “the Controller’s order was in violation of Clause 11 under Chapter XXV of AMU Academic Ordinances that govern procedure of conducting viva voce of a candidate for a Ph.D. program.
“Under media pressure, university fixed a meeting with petitioner on 10.10.2008. After hours of discussions parties agreed to wait return of his supervisor to India. The said decision was brought to the notice of VC.”
Hilaluddin says his supervisor Prof. Yahya has returned and resumed on 19.12.2008 for 4-5 weeks then he will return to USA. He says Prof. Yahya will leave country on 30.01.2009 for his assignment in USA. If his viva voce is not conducted before that, the entire process shall again be prolonged and delay the proceedings for another one year.
That’s why he approached the Allahabad High Court and filed writ petition making VC, Controller of Examinations and Admissions, Dr. Afifullah Khan, Chairman, Dept. of Wildlife Sciences as respondents.
“He has urged the court to give directions to respondents for scheduling the viva voce before 30.01.2009 to avoid the possibility of the degree for which the petitioner had been inspiring for the last 13 years and has been denied the same for no fault of him only due to the arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair attitude of the respondents.”
Talking to TwoCircles.net Hilaluddin said while the university officials tried their best to deny me my Ph.D. degree in the last 13 years but they failed and now just viva voce is pending. “Ignoring their own mistakes, they are pressing me to make a statement that the last 13 years were lapsed because of my fault, not any university official.” As time was running out and they were delaying viva voce, he approached the court.
The court heard the case on January 13, and the counsel for the AMU, as Hilaluddin told TCN, sought a week’s time from the court to respond. The university is likely to respond on January 21.
VC, Controller of Examinations and Admissions and Chairman, Dept. of Wildlife Sciences have been made party in this case. Dr Rahat Abrar, PRO, AMU, however, is not aware of the case. He told TCN that he was not aware of any Hilaluddin Vs AMU case.
|
Your long story draw attention to a few things, RTI is a very useful tool to take one towards getting justice, how unnecessary delays are manufactured by the University processes and how the University is indifferent towards its own functioning and how functionaries do not feel it their responsibility to be aware of things but prefer ad hoc dealing of affairs. The entire set up is in chaos with no order which helps persons at the helm of affairs for they are the only ones who can dictate ad hoc arrangements according to their whims. |
|
| 4 |
Part-1
Hilaluddin Vs AMU: 13 yrs on, student yet to get Ph.D. degree
.
By Mumtaz Alam Falahi, TwoCircles.net,
New Delhi: For 13 years since he submitted his Ph.D. thesis he has been waiting for viva voce examination and for this he has made rounds and rounds of concerned departments at Aligarh Muslim University but to no avail. At last he took the matter to Allahabad High Court on 8th of this January.
Wildlife scientist Hilaluddin submitted his Ph.D. thesis at the Department of Wildlife Sciences at Aligarh Muslim University in 1995 but “due to careless and negligent attitude of the university authorities” as he alleges in his writ petition, he hasn’t yet been awarded Ph.D. degree.
According to the petition, a copy of which is with TCN, he submitted draft of thesis to his then supervisor Dr Afifullah Khan for his kind perusal in the end of 1995. Dr. Afifullah Khan duly checked his thesis and returned the draft to petitioner for final print out. At the same time, according to Hilaluddin, he was asked to marry sister of one of his (Khan’s) close friends. Hilaluddin straightforward refused the proposal, and here started the 13-year-long story.
According to the petition, annoyed Dr Afifullah Khan asked Hilaluddin to appear in M. Phil. examination on the basis of the resolution of the Item No. 6 of BoS/CWO/23.09.95. Hilaluddin verbally requested him to look over his admission’s legality (Admission Slip No. 657/Cont./AMU/05.01.94 AND Cash Receipts No. 77714/05.01.94) and allow him to submit his Ph.D. thesis as he was admitted to pursue direct Ph.D. program (L.D. No. 3308/Proc/AMU/01.01.94). He also reminded him about prevalent direct Ph.D. program in Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.
He told Dr. Afifullah Khan that he had recommendation of AMU authorities – Chairman of the Dept. of Wildlife Sciences, Dean of the Faculty of Life Sciences, Dean Student Welfare, Provost of V.M. Hall, Controller of Admissions and Proctor, that allowed him for getting admitted to direct Ph.D. program.
Dr. Afifullah Khan did not budge. Hilaluddin brought the matter into the notice of the higher authorities in AMU through a letter Ref. No. 4409/VC/AMU on 10.01.1996.
“In revenge, Dr. Afifullah Khan wrote a letter (Ref. No. 82/96/CWO/Int. dated 23.01.96) to the then Chairman of the Dept. of Wildlife Sciences. In this letter, he framed prejudiced allegations against petitioner for his non-involvement in Ph.D. program in a serious manner and also not taking up M. Phil, and he was unaware of the whereabouts of the petitioner. And Dr. Afifullah Khan even recommended for cancellation of admission of petitioner,” says the petition.
Subsequently the Board of Studies of the Dept. of Wildlife Sciences recommended for cancellation of the admission of Hilaluddin on 02.03.1996 “without giving an opportunity to him to defend himself.” He wrote letters against the board ruling to competent authorities of AMU.
The Committee for Advanced Study and Research (CASR) of that faculty in its meeting XXVIII on 24.05.1996 unanimously rejected the board order and asked the Chairman to forward the thesis of Hilaluddin to the office of Controller of Examinations. But that order was not implemented.
Rather, on 25.05.1996 Chairman of Dept. of Wildlife Sciences wrote a letter to Dean of the Faculty of Life Sciences, expressing doubt over CASR decision. Dean forwarded the letter to VC, and when asked by Controller, Dean said, “there is no record to establish that petitioner ever requested for obtaining direct Ph.D. degree and also petitioner was never admitted directly to Ph.D. program at the Dept. of Wildlife Sciences.” Hilaluddin says his office has issued Ph.D. bona fide certificates to him on 11.04.1994 and 09.01.1996 on the recommendation of the then Chairman of the Dept. of Wildlife Sciences and his preceded Dean has also recommended for direct Ph.D. admission to him on his Ph. D. Admission Form.
|
We have no information on this issue although we had heard a lot about it. Thank you for the informaiton. |
|
| 5 |
Date : 19.01.2009
RTI Act 2005
In the red tapisim of executives.
True democracy is Govt. Functions must be transparent and executives should be prevented from deceiving people. Simultaneously, by the close interpretation of the Act.
Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The free flow of information & ideas inform political debate. It is a safety value; people are more ready to accept decisions that go against them if they can in principle seek to influence them. It acts as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials. It facilitates the exposure of errors in the governance and administration of justice of the country.
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations on society. The reason why the right to free expression is regarded as fundamental is familiar and has a merit restatement in the context of right to information as a statutory right.
Modern democratic govt. means as stated above govt. of people, by the people & for the people. But there can be no govt. by the people if they are ignorant of the issues to be resolved, the arguments for & against different solutions and the facts underlying those arguments. The business of govt. is not an activity about which only those professionally engaged are entitled to receive information and express opinion. It is, or should be a participatory process. But there can be no assurance that govt. is carried out for the people unless the facts are made known & the issues publicly ventilated. Sometimes inevitably those involved in the conduct of govt., as in any other walk of life, are guilty of error, incompetence, misbehavior dereliction of duty, even dishonesty & malpractises. Those concerned may be very strongly wish that the facts relating to such matters are not made public. Publicity may reflect discredit on them or their predecessors. It may embarrass the authorities. It may impede the process of administration. Experience, however, shows, in this country & elsewhere, that publicity is a powerful disinfectant. Where abuses are exposed, they can be remedied. Even where abuses have already been remedied, the public may be entitled to know that they occurred.
The Act was framed and as per the Act every office has to appoint PIO so that information as early can be given to the applicant & a time frame of 30 days is given it has been noticed & the information which can be given within few minutes by giving Xerox copies can be delivered or withhold nearly for 20-25 days. Sometimes information is not provided & give applicant has to go in 1st appeal. Another, 30 days he has to wait for his appeal to be decided, even though if it is not given he has to go for a second appeal, again he has to wait for couple of months & years for to be decided. By just imposing a fine of Rs.250/- per day is not sufficient or maximum 25,000/- because the vested interests of the PIO or executives are misleading the in formations even informing the other dept. that information is being asked is working & very big rackets especially at the time of tenders for eg. I am providing some of the information to RTI applicants that how the officers are in collusion with the contractors or in concerned dept. & with hold the information to help the contractors in the name in the name of third party even though while laws are being violated they are passing on the applications which has nothing to do with the concerned dept. which shows their malafied & vested interest.
Hope necessary changes are brought & information are not with hold in the name of IIIrd Parties & people are empowered to bring out the corruptions.
Due you hope, the APIO, PIO’s appellate authorities in the last 60 years have tried to conceal the information & have given the information so easily. Something should truly be done in this regard & a most should take place for a better tomorrow. And the concerned are punished for misleading with malafied intentions.
From : Maqsood Machhiwala
Quraish Nagar, Kurla (E), Mumbai –400070.
Mob : 9867480507
|
Thank you for taking the trouble of sending a message with a message in it. You are absolutely correct that different methods have been evolved to scuttle the providing of information. However, it may be understood that the RTI Act requires that if any of its provisions are used to deny information it is incumbent not just to quote the provision but also to provide the reason how such a provision is applicable. In short, any disposal has to be reasoned and speaking. Therefore we should insist on this and not accept a simple quoting of a provision of RTI. |
|
|
|
|
|
