sno: 
109
Undefined
Requestreg No: 
DOHED/R/2016/51538
Request Category: 
nil
Request: 
To\n Public Information Officer\n Ministry of Human Resources Development \n New Delhi\n\nSub: Information under Right to information Act.\nSir/Madam\n You are requested to supply the following information under Right to Information Act. Payment has been made through online gateway. \n\nIf any faculty/guide quits the institute (IIT) due to any reason and a student who have put his/her two or three of research as PhD student, as per rules of IIT, a student is asked to choose another guide and start afresh on the new topic. Whereas if the guide from West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS) quits, then as per Rule 4.2 of West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS) REGULATIONS GOVERNING AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, the guide is bound to make an agreement that he will have the responsibility of continuing to guide the students who are registered under him/her before getting relieved from the university. The exact wording of the rule 4.2 is reproduced below.\n\n4.2 Faculty who attain superannuation or resign their jobs will forfeit recognition as Guide / Coguide. However, such a person shall sign a letter that he/ she shall have the responsibility of continuing to guide candidates who were registered under him / her, before getting relieved from the University \n\nIn the first case relating to IIT the time spent by the student is wasted and no safeguards are provided by the IIT to continue his work on the old topic/subject, instead the student is asked to start afresh on a fresh topic/subject, while in the second case, the rule has been made taking in to consideration the future as well the rights of the student.\n\n Please clarify why there is a disparity in rules of the two institutions whereas both the institutions are governed by your department. \n\n We also want to ask if in such a situation, you (MHRD) is/are willing to force IIT to bound its teacher to guide the students till their thesis gets completed.\n\n We ask whether in such a case MHRD will pay for the additional years (6th and 7th) spent in completing the thesis as compared to normal five years span for which scholarship is paid as according to IIT, student has to start afresh with new topic of Ph.D.\n\nThanking you\nYours faithfully\n\nRavinder Kumar Ajmani\nHouse No. 1394\nSector 7 \nKarnal 132001 \nHaryana
Request Recvd Date: 
04/05/2016
Request Reply: 
Reply attached.
Appealreg No: 
DOHED/A/2016/60173
Appeal: 
To\nMinistry of Human Resources Development \nNew Delhi\n\nSub: Information under Right to information Act.\nSir/Madam\nYou are requested to supply the following information under Right to Information Act. Payment has been made through online gateway. \n\nIf any faculty/guide quits the institute (IIT) due to any reason and a student who have put his/her two or three of research as PhD student, as per rules of IIT, a student is asked to choose another guide and start afresh on the new topic. Whereas if the guide from West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS) quits, then as per Rule 4.2 of West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS) REGULATIONS GOVERNING AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, the guide is bound to make an agreement that he will have the responsibility of continuing to guide the students who are registered under him/her before getting relieved from the university. The exact wording of the rule 4.2 is reproduced below.\n\n4.2 Faculty who attain superannuation or resign their jobs will forfeit recognition as Guide / Coguide. However, such a person shall sign a letter that he/ she shall have the responsibility of continuing to guide candidates who were registered under him / her, before getting relieved from the University \n\nIn the first case relating to IIT the time spent by the student is wasted and no safeguards are provided by the IIT to continue his work on the old topic/subject, instead the student is asked to start afresh on a fresh topic/subject, while in the second case, the rule has been made taking in to consideration the future as well the rights of the student.\n\nPlease clarify why there is a disparity in rules of the two institutions whereas both the institutions are governed by your department. \n\nWe also want to ask if in such a situation, you (MHRD) is/are willing to force IIT to bound its teacher to guide the students till their thesis gets completed.\n\nWe ask whether in such a case MHRD will pay for the additional years (6th and 7th) spent in completing the thesis as compared to normal five years span for which scholarship is paid as according to IIT, student has to start afresh with new topic of Ph.d\n\n\nI had earlier asked the above written matter to RTI officer but unsatisfactory reply came. As IIT comes under the control of MHRD, it becomes your responsibility to furnish the above said information. Please furnish the information in case of IIT as MHRD is the boss of IITs. In case of comparison of the above information with that of WBNUJS if it does not come under your supervision, we will accept it. But saying that this matter belongs to IIT will not work. IIT does not have information or rule for the above written situation, in this case student has no option other than to approach MHRD. So, kindly consider the case sincerely as this problem is not hypothetical but real. Suggest or furnish good information cum solution to this problem\n\nRavinder Ajmani
Appeal Recvd Date: 
10/05/2016
Appeal Reply: 
Reply attached.