CIC member O P Kejariwal has threatened to take an "extremely serious" view if IIT Kharagpur, which conducted the JEE in 2006, did not disclose by January 15 how exactly it had calculated the cut-off marks in that test in each of the three subjects: mathematics, physics and chemistry.
http://gravityclasses.co.in/
This is the third non-compliance notice issued by CIC to IIT Kharagpur, which was found to have given two different versions of the statistical procedure for the cut-off. Worse, neither of those versions was found to tally with the cut-off marks admittedly applied in the 2006 IIT-JEE.
http://gravityclasses.co.in/
As per the system, every year a different IIT conducts the JEE by rotation but now RTI has put a question mark on the credibility of what is considered a global brand.
Consider the sequence of events that led to such a pass:
-In October 2006, the parent of an unsuccessful candidate filed RTI applications asking for cut-off marks, procedure for arriving at them and marks of the students above the cut-off marks in the IIT-JEE held that year.
http://gravityclasses.co.in/
-In December '06, IIT Kharagpur gave an evasive reply saying there was "no fixed procedure or technique" for deciding the cut-off marks. It said the decision is made each year "depending on the overall performance of the candidates".
http://gravityclasses.co.in/
-In May 2007, after hearing an appeal filed by the aggrieved parent, CIC directed IIT Kharagpur to disclose all the information sought under RTI and issued notice on why penalty should not be imposed for its failure to do so till then.
-The same month, IIT Kharagpur, besides disclosing the cut-off marks and marks of the students above those levels in each of the subjects in the 2006 JEE, came up with the first version of the procedure for arriving at the cut-offs.
-In June 2007, CIC issued a non-compliance notice as the stated procedure did not tally with the cut-off marks.
-In July 2007, IIT Kharagpur said the information provided by it was correct.
-In August 2007, CIC issued a second non-compliance notice.
-The same month, IIT Kharagpur came up with a second version of the procedure for determining the cutoff marks.
-In September 2007, CIC closed the case on the basis of the second version.
-In October 2007, the appellant asked CIC to reopen the case saying that even the second version did not tally with the cut-off marks.
-On December 7, CIC, reopening the case, directed IIT Kharagpur to comply with its directions "in full" by January
