Higher Education

Date Format DD/MM/YYYY
S. No. Request No Request Category Request Request Recevied Date Request Doc URL Request Reply Request Reply Doc URL Appeal Registration No Appeal Appeal Recevied Date Appeal Doc URL Appeal Reply Appeal Reply Doc URL
1211 DOHED/R/2017/53258 nil An addendum (dated 16.09.2009) to the MHRD notification 23-1/2008-TS.II (dated: 18.08.2009) to the directors of all centrally funded technical institutions reads (quote) Assistant Professors in IITs, IISc, Bangalore, IIMs, NITIE Mumbai and IISERs, on completion of 3 years of service in the (sic) shall move to Pay band of Rs. 374000-67000 (PB 4) with an Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs 9000 and will, however, continue to be designated as Assistant Professor. (unquote) However, there are some instances where the director of such an institution asked for a performance review interview of an assistant professor (AP) in PB3 to upgrade his salary to PB4 several months after the AP completed his 3 years of service as an AP in PB3 in the same institute. In most cases, the AP has been performing well in research, teaching and other institute activities assigned to him. In some cases, the upgrade from PB3 to PB4 was denied for the AP. I would like to know (1) whether the MHRD is aware of and condones this practice of the directors, (2) whether the directors of such institutions are bestowed with the power (i) to flout the MHRD notification, (ii) call for a performance review and (iii) deny an upgrade from PB3 to PB4 of a deserving AP (the word deserving is in accordance with the statement of the MHRD notification). If the directors have such a power to deny the upgrade, I would like to ask for a copy of the relevant MHRD order. Thanks. 06/09/2017 nil Reply attached. View nil nil nil View nil View
1212 DOHED/R/2017/53258/3 nil An addendum (dated 16.09.2009) to the MHRD notification 23-1/2008-TS.II (dated: 18.08.2009) to the directors of all centrally funded technical institutions reads (quote) Assistant Professors in IITs, IISc, Bangalore, IIMs, NITIE Mumbai and IISERs, on completion of 3 years of service in the (sic) shall move to Pay band of Rs. 374000-67000 (PB 4) with an Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs 9000 and will, however, continue to be designated as Assistant Professor. (unquote) However, there are some instances where the director of such an institution asked for a performance review interview of an assistant professor (AP) in PB3 to upgrade his salary to PB4 several months after the AP completed his 3 years of service as an AP in PB3 in the same institute. In most cases, the AP has been performing well in research, teaching and other institute activities assigned to him. In some cases, the upgrade from PB3 to PB4 was denied for the AP. I would like to know (1) whether the MHRD is aware of and condones this practice of the directors, (2) whether the directors of such institutions are bestowed with the power (i) to flout the MHRD notification, (ii) call for a performance review and (iii) deny an upgrade from PB3 to PB4 of a deserving AP (the word deserving is in accordance with the statement of the MHRD notification). If the directors have such a power to deny the upgrade, I would like to ask for a copy of the relevant MHRD order. Thanks. 06/09/2017 nil Reply has been sent vide our letter dated 6.10.2017. Hence Dispose off View nil nil nil View nil View
1213 DOHED/R/2017/53258/6 nil An addendum (dated 16.09.2009) to the MHRD notification 23-1/2008-TS.II (dated: 18.08.2009) to the directors of all centrally funded technical institutions reads (quote) Assistant Professors in IITs, IISc, Bangalore, IIMs, NITIE Mumbai and IISERs, on completion of 3 years of service in the (sic) shall move to Pay band of Rs. 374000-67000 (PB 4) with an Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs 9000 and will, however, continue to be designated as Assistant Professor. (unquote) However, there are some instances where the director of such an institution asked for a performance review interview of an assistant professor (AP) in PB3 to upgrade his salary to PB4 several months after the AP completed his 3 years of service as an AP in PB3 in the same institute. In most cases, the AP has been performing well in research, teaching and other institute activities assigned to him. In some cases, the upgrade from PB3 to PB4 was denied for the AP. I would like to know (1) whether the MHRD is aware of and condones this practice of the directors, (2) whether the directors of such institutions are bestowed with the power (i) to flout the MHRD notification, (ii) call for a performance review and (iii) deny an upgrade from PB3 to PB4 of a deserving AP (the word deserving is in accordance with the statement of the MHRD notification). If the directors have such a power to deny the upgrade, I would like to ask for a copy of the relevant MHRD order. Thanks. 06/09/2017 nil Disposed of your RTI application Vid latter No. 16-1/2017(RTI-123)-TS.V View nil nil nil View nil View
1214 DOHED/R/2017/90056 nil Transferred for an appropriate action on Point No. 2. 05/09/2017 nil Information replied vide letter No.3-11/2011-S&S dt. 12.09.2017 View nil nil nil View nil View
1215 DOHED/R/2017/80792/3 nil Sh. Sanjay Gupta Under Secretary Central Public Information Officer Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 110001 Subject Application under RTI Act Dear Sir, It has been widely reported that the Ministry of Human Resources Development has instructed the all educational institutions to prohibit drivers working in these institutions from owning smartphones. It is in this regard, kindly provide me information/documents with respect to the following questions, as mandated by the Right to Information Act, 2005. 1. A copy of the order/instruction/circular/advisory has been issued by the Ministry Advisory that prohibits drivers working in educational institutions from owning smartphones. I seek the above information under Section 3 of the Right to Information Act 2005. Please find the application fee for the request attached with this application has already been paid online. 05/09/2017 nil Reply attached. View nil nil nil View nil View
1216 DOHED/R/2017/80791/3 nil Sh. Sanjay Gupta Under Secretary Central Public Information Officer Ministry of Human Resource Development Shastri Bhawan, Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 110001 Subject Application under RTI Act Dear Sir, It has been widely reported that the Ministry of Human Resources Development has instructed the all educational institutions to prohibit drivers working in these institutions from owning smartphones. It is in this regard, kindly provide me information/documents with respect to the following questions, as mandated by the Right to Information Act, 2005. 1. A copy of the order/instruction/circular/advisory has been issued by the Ministry Advisory that prohibits drivers working in educational institutions from owning smartphones. I seek the above information under Section 3 of the Right to Information Act 2005. Please find the application fee for the request attached with this application has already been paid online. 04/09/2017 nil Reply attached. View nil nil nil View nil View
1217 DOHED/R/2017/52824 nil please provide information- 1.in office period of D.S. WALIA (deputy educational advisor(T)) in Govt. of India, ministry of education and culture(department of education) 2. name of deputy educational advisor(T), Govt. of India, ministry of education and culture(department of education) in 1988. please provide information seperatly and in hindi (if possible) 07/08/2017 nil From the text of your RTI application, it is not clear as to what information has been sought by you. You are, therefore, requested to convey clearly either by writing or meeting the undersigned in Room no. 236, C Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi as per your convenience. View DOHED/A/2017/60320 Sir, i have submitted the RTI no. DOHED/R/2017/52824 in your dept. after that there i reply from yourside in which you asked me to come to the dept. and explain the matter in room no.236, c wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. I went there and clearified my matter in front of your offical and provided in writing also. this incident took place one month before and the reply or answer is not provided till now. please provide me the information on the RTI no. DOHED/R/2017/52824 09/10/2017 View Reply has been furnished by CPIO to the applicant, therefore appeal stands disposed of. Appealate order is attached herewith. View
1218 DOHED/R/2017/80658 nil Q1 Most of the Ministry and Department RTI websites are not working why Q2 What are the works done under NREGA in Sikar district of Rajasthan number of workers employed under NREGA in Sikar district Distribution of workers as per sex and age Q3 Reason for explosion in INS Sindhurakshak S63 Q4 How Indian navy attacked INS Ghazi complete sequence of process Q5 INDIA CHINA import export data Q6 Doklam is part of which country Q7 Map of disputed Demarked area of Chumbi valley near doklam Q8 How many Indian army personel are in Jammu and kashmir Q9 which Weapons are used by indian armed forces Q10 Why india recognized srilankas ownership on Katchatheevu island Q11 How much indian government spends on each of IIT Delhi student per year Q12 data of placement in IIT Delhi in year 2016 17 Q13 Who were the advocates in Keshwananda bharti vs state of kerala 1973 case 04/08/2017 nil Reply attached. View nil nil nil View nil View
1219 DOHED/R/2017/52780 nil Request for details about National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT) 1. A brief note on achievements under various components of NMEICT, including outcomes and output. 2. Component-wise details of NMEICT including amount approved or allocated, released and utilised, for each year from the beginning of the Mission/ scheme. 3. Achievements under various major projects under each Component of NMEICT 4. Project-wise details (Major projects only) including amount approved or allocated, released and utilised, for each year from the beginning of the Mission/ scheme. Thank you 03/08/2017 nil Reply given View nil nil nil View nil View
1220 DOHED/R/2017/52773 nil I would like to get information pertaining to the following questions with respect to the IIM, IIT colleges under the ministry - (1) How many IIM, IIT colleges under the ministry have Quotas for the Transgender Students. If there are any, how many seats are reserved for them in those colleges. (2) Are the quotas reserved for them always filled or are there instances of the seats reserved for them not been filled due to lack of application from the transgender students. If so, how many such instances have been recorded in those colleges in the past one year i.e. 2016. (3) What is the drop out rate of among the transgender students admitted in those colleges (4) Have there been instances of assault and harassment reported against the Transgender students by the fellow students and faculties in those colleges, If so, what all actions have been taken against the accused in such cases in the past two years i.e. 2015 and 2016. (5) Are there any policies in place to protect the interests of the Transgender Students in the those colleges, If there, please specify what they are ( at least 4 of them ). Thank You 02/08/2017 nil Reply attached. View DOHED/A/2017/60277 The information pertaining to Para 3, 4 and 5 is simply denied on the pretext that it is available in other separate departments, however, the particulars of such department has not been enclosed in the reply. In such a situation, it is difficult to find the appropriate department or the public authority where such information would be available as the information is not available in the department where I applied. Therefore, this appeal is to request to provide the information and the particulars of the departments as mentioned above. Thank You. 27/08/2017 View Reply attached. View

Pages

Last Updated by admin on :- Wednesday, 20 February 2019 - 10:44am