To,
The Hon’ble Minister of HRD & Chairman IIT Council, and All IIT Council Members

Respected Sir/Ma’am

On the day, the Right To Education (RTE) Act comes into effect, I recall my many letters regarding large scale irregularities in IIT-JEEs, which have been discovered due to my tenacious efforts of the past 4 years using Right To Information (RTI) Act. I have requested again-n-again for reforming JEE with transparency,accountability and using state-of-art of processes so that JEE system is not plagues by the bungling. 2. I extend my great appreciation and heart-felt thanks to the Hon’ble Minister of HRD for suggesting to explore the possibility of having a single examination for engineering admissions, as proposed by me in my proposal, dated 04/02/10. This will greatly de-stress the candidates.

3. However, I am deeply disappointed with rest of the Terms of References (ToR), as outlined in MHRD’sOrder No. F.No.19-2/2010-TS.1, dated 08/03/10 (enclosed herein). I briefly list them below:

4. The ToR is completely silent on many of the discrepancies and irregularities that have been revealedthrough data disclosures of the past 4 JEEs, namely, ad hocism in cutoff determination, unattended errors in question settings/evaluation, tampering/shredding of ORS in undue haste, promoting coaching institutes,lacking transparency, having a heavily skewed marks distribution, selecting powerful faculty wards, poor admission counseling with vacant seats, zero accountability for attending to apparent errors, poor ethics in JEEadministration etc. Whatever is the type of examination, all the issues listed herein will remain relevant.

5. The ToR refers to streamlining and rationalizing JEE. We believe if many of the above discrepancies/irregularities are taken care of, much of the job would be done. There may not be a need to completely overthrow an examination system which can be reformed/revised meaningfully, as suggested in my proposalof 04/02/10, and/or still better processes/techniques may emerge.

6. The ToR refers to giving weightage to Board examination. Weightage cannot work in Indian federation having many tens of boards and having their own way of assessment. Giving weightage will neednormalization of marks, normalization is known to introduce errors in raw marks. None of the normalization can effectively reduce/eliminate the variability induced by many heterogeneous and distinct systems. Institutions which were using Board performance for admissions, e.g., BITS Pilani, have completely discarded of Board performance due to their inherent limitations and side-effects. Recently, the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination conducted by UPSC, have decided to discard the performance assessment based on subject-electives whose marks were normalized to bring parity.

7. The ToR refers to gauge the raw intelligence through aptitude test. Testing aptitude may be a welcome step though testing raw intelligence is questionable. There are plenty of institutes all-around who impart coaching for aptitude test. This measure will promote coaching. Candidates from rural background will be at disadvantage.

8. The ToR does not say anything about the discrepancies by which 994 students were denied opportunity to study in IITs. I submit JEE 2006 Organizing Institute acted malafidely with the sole motive to delay the matterto try and make it infructuous. That the intentions were malafide is established from the following facts:(i) IIT Kharagpur submitted four different versions of the JEE 2006 cut-off determining procedure at four different fora, continuously changing the formula they claimed to have used after this appellant exposed each time that stated formula did not yield the required cut-offs. The IITs did not even stick by the formula they said they swore they used in an affidavit filed before the Calcutta High Court, claiming another procedure later; none of these four procedures yield the used cut-offs. (ii) Not complying with completely and correctly any of the 25-odd orders/warnings/summon/show-cause/non-compliance orders issued from Central Information Commission (CIC) to IIT Kharagpur so far.

In its latest CIC order, dated, 19/03/10, Director IIT Kharagpur is recommended to train people within IIT who are dealing with RTI setup. (iii) Shredding of the scripts, in undue haste, despite this appellant’s fear and repeated appeals to all IITs top-executives, much before the shredding was done, that ORS/marks were tampered, allowing select facultywards to score amazingly high marks, and wards of their dislike to score a few, (iv) Most of the IIT Kharagpur’s administrators who worked malafidely and to delay the matter of JEE 2006, have been rewarded. For example,− A superannuated assistant registrar, is being re-employed every year to work as OSD to PIO, in spiteof him not replying to any of the RTI query, completely and correctly, and despite of CIC’s issuing 25-odd orders against IIT Khragpur in this matter. Yet none of the order is fully complied. − The JEE Chairman, who responded with wrong facts and contents (that was the only letter, dated 26/09/06, which IIT issued in this whole matter running for the past 4 years) is the Chief VigilanceOfficer, IIT Kharagpur.− Organizing Chairman, JEE 2006 who has been squarely responsible for all the bungling and tampering data/information in JEE 2006, is enjoying all the patronage. His son was admitted in IIT Kharagpurwithout ever qualifying JEE; he was the only faculty member to receive such favor from the then Director, IIT Kharagpur, who later became Chairman, JAB 2006. The Organizing Chairman had been issuing veiled threats to the appellant. − A deputy registrar, who issued threats as criminal intimidation directed at this appellant, in presence of the CIC, a constitutional authority, is an officiating registrar, enjoying salary and perks of a registrar, in spite of not having the qualification and not found suitable for the post of registrar by a recent selection committee. − Then deputy director, who acted as CEO of this case for most of the time, and delayed the case as much as to make it infructuous, is a current Director of an IIT. Admission of his son in IIT Kharagpur without scoring any JEE rank, is a tale in itself. − The Current IIT Director, who has been the overall in-charge since the matter moved to Court, is aparty to submitting factually wrong information and is responsible for most of the rewards/favors. − Son of the then director, IIT Kharagpur, who later became the Chairman JAB 2006, was caught impersonating for some one in JEE.− Parents of 5 out of 7 wards of IIT-Kgp, who are currently studying in IIT Kharagpur through JEE, areIIT administrators (including an IIT Director). There are many other instances too. (v) Things are not much different at IIT Kanpur too. The faculty wards who were selected in JEE 2006 from IIT Kanpur scored amazingly high marks and peculiar pattern of marks. For example, their Chemistry markswere {135, 130 and 125}; higher the post higher the marks, son of then Dean-Academics (now deputydirector) scored the highest. Spouse of then Chairman, JEE 2006, IIT Kanpur was appointed on a regular position after so called successful conduct of JEE 2006. There are other instances too.

9. I further request and re-iterate that(i) the victims of JEE 2006 should be admitted in IITs, on credit transfer, in 5y dual degree engineering program by the start of the summer term in May 2010, as proposed in Item 9 of my letter, dated 04/02/2010 (annexed herein), (may be in the spirit of the Bollywood Movie ‘My Name is Khan’), (ii) the simple and workable JEE reforms to bring effective transparency, accountability and incorporating better processes/procedures, in the JEE system, as suggested (annexed herein), should be introduced with the JEE 2010 (to be held on 11 April 2010), and (iii) a white paper may be published and the complete JEE 2006 be thoroughly investigated.

10. I would be delighted to provide any additional information at any stage in support of the arguments foradmission of victims on credit-transfer as well as for the data analysis for JEE Reforms. Despite being an important “Public issue”, the Committee has not provided so far any platform for the public and the stakeholders to enable them sending their grievances/suggestions. Crucially it means that none can sendgrievances/feedback and the Committee may work close doors.

11. I look forward to realization of child-hood dreams of the JEE 2006 victims, and to reforming and strengthening examination with transparency, accountability, use of state-of-art processes and de-stressing the candidates. With best regards
Sincerely,

Rajiv Kumar

(Rajiv Kumar is teacher of Computer Science at IIT Kharagpur and has been fighting for transparency and reforms in JEE for many years. The letter has been written to MHRD on 1st April 2010)

Delhi High Court has issued notices to IITs and Ministry of HRD just before few days of JEE on a PIL filed by an RTI activist and Professor of Computer Science at IIT Kharagpur. The Professor has alleged that prestigious IIT-JEE is ‘not foolproof’ examination system and several modifications are needed in this regard. Over 4.92 lakh candidates are appearing in IIT-JEE this year.
Talking to fachcha.com Prof. Rajiv Kumar said that JEE is not ‘fraud’ as mentioned by a section of media but it is ‘not a foolproof system’ of examination. ‘It is still not clear that how the cut off of the JEE is decided’ Prof. Kumar told fachcha.com. According to him he met even Union HRD Minister Kapil Sibbal in this regard but nothing has happened despite his assurance to form a committee to make the system transparent and more accountable.
It is notable that the several changes have been made in JEE due to his efforts. But these changes are not sufficient. JEE sends marks to the candidates but after four months, says Prof. Kumar adding that it has no meaning. ‘Transparency has been come upto some extent but lot of things yet to be done”, he adds. The PIL has been filed by Pranshant Bhushan on his behalf.