Tuesday 8 March 2011

The Story of 'Rampant Copying'

Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, Eklavya, JEE, 2006, IIT, RTI, Right To Information, Act, Ethical, Journalism, Rampant Copying, Cheating


Hindustan Times
1st December, 2010


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hindustan Times, Mumbai Edition

2nd December, 2011
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hindustan Times (Internet Edition) 
2nd December, 2010


'Crowded IIT helps cheats'  


Seating Problem : Kharagpur professor writes to authorities, pointing out rampant copying during tests
Charu Sudan Kasturi, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, December 01, 2010
Crowded classes at the oldest Indian Institute of Technology, in Kharagpur, may have spawned an unexpected problem - increased copying among students in crucial tests that determine their overall performance at the premier engineering school. Senior IIT Kharagpur computer science professor Rajeev Kumar has written to top Institute authorities pointing out "rampant copying" among students, especially in subject examinations held by specific departments.  
This cheating is a result of improper seating arrangements, Kumar has written to Director Damodar Acharya and Institute examinations in-charge B Maiti, requesting a special meeting of the IIT Senate to discuss the problem.
But senior IIT Kharagpur officials blame the space crunch caused by the massive 54 per cent increase in total student intake following the implementation of the OBC quota law, to explain their inability to space student test-takers better. The hike in total student intake -- across categories -- means that the IIT is currently faced with a space shortage in classes, hostels and in examination halls.
This space shortage forces the IIT to seat students appearing for the same subject next to each other, facilitating cheating, the officials argued.
But while curbing any copying is a priority, ensuring students appearing for the same subject test do not sit next to each other will not be easy, they said.
"We have 1400 first year students who appear for the same subjects. We are struggling for space. Fancy seating arrangements are something we cannot afford at the moment," a senior administrator said.
Scores in the IIT examinations all contribute to the cumulative grade point average (CGPA) of students at the end of their course. The CGPA plays a key role in determining eligibility of students in the eyes of companies that come for on-campus placements, and higher educational institutions.
Kumar has suggested mapping the student seating to the subject they appear for, and then ensuring that no two subjects are close to each other. He has argued that this system of seating was followed earlier based on his proposal and had proved successful.
"Kumar's argument appears justified, and his suggestion should be followed. But if space is indeed a barrier in implementing Kumar's solution, the institute's position must also be understood," another senior IIT Kharagpur professor said.
Kumar is arguing that his seating suggestion can be followed despite the space constraints but IIT authorities argue they need an upcoming new academic block to be ready for seating problems to be sorted out.




Kumar’s View
-  ‘Rampant copying’ among students, especially in subject examinations held by specific departments.
-   This cheating is a result of improper seating arrangements.
-   Need an upcoming new academic block to be ready for seating problems to be sorted out.
-  Kumar has suggested mapping the student seating to the subject they appear for, and then ensuring that no two subjects are close to each other.
Administration’s Defence
-   Blame the space crunch caused by the massive 54 percent increase in total student intake following the implementation of OBC quota law.
-   This space shortage forces the IIT to seat students appearing for the same subject next to each other, facilitating cheating.
-   Have 1400 first year students who appear for the same subjects. Fancy seating arrangements are something we cannot afford at this moment
Kumar’s argument appears justified, and his suggestion should be followed.
-- an administrator
If space is indeed a barrier, . . . the institute’s position must also be understood.
-- a professor



Review of the Allegations / Claims
 
Background:


  1. In IIT Kharagpur, examination invigilation is performed by faculty members of the institute.
  1. Cases of examination malpractice, as reported by the teachers, are taken up by the Examination Malpractice Committee and subsequently the punishment is meted out as per norms.
  1. This is ratified by the Undergraduate Program Evaluation Committee (UGPEC) and Postgraduate Program Evaluation Committee (PGPEC) and then by the Senate.
  1. The UGPEC and PGPEC have representatives from all departments. [Professor Rajeev Kumar is the UGPEC representative from CSE Department for several years’]
  1. The Senate, consisting of all Professors and some other nominated members forms the highest academic body of the Institute. [Professor Rajeev Kumar is a member of the Senate.]
  1. The allegation of ‘rampant copying’ was discussed at length in the 296th Senate Meeting held on December 27, 2010. It was attended by more than hundred  Senate Members. 

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Discussions Related to the Senate Meeting:
  1. In connection with his claim of ‘rampant copying’, several Professors, Heads of Departments, etc stated to / asked Professor Rajeev Kumar the following:

    1. What is the percentage of students who were copying? Professor Rajeev Kumar gave no reply. [It is observed from the reports of the malpractice committee reports, the percentage was less than 0.1%]

    1. What is the material evidence Professor Rajeev Kumar has of ‘rampant copying’? Is there any documented evidence he has of ‘rampant copying’? Prof Kumar stated two cases. [No evidence was provided by Professor Kumar other than his claim to have reported two to four cases in the last ten years.]
    1. How many departments has he visited when examinations were conducted in various departments and what evidence he has of ‘rampant copying’ in department examinations? Professor Kumar gave no reply. [Prof Kumar has provided no data on ‘rampant copying’ in department examinations.]

    1. Heads of several departments as well as members of his own department refuted the claim of ‘rampant copying’ in department examinations.

    1. Professor Rajeev Kumar is the CSE Department’s representative in UGPEC for the last several years. Prior to writing to Chairman Senate he has not reported cases of ‘rampant copying’ in examinations either in the CSE department or in the UGPEC.

    1. Many Senate members unequivocally stated that, based on their experience in invigilation, they could vouch that there was no ‘rampant copying’ in examinations.    

    1. No other Senate member supported Professor Rajeev Kumar’s claim of ‘rampant copying’.

  1. Referring to Professor Rajeev Kumar’s claim that he had proposed the ABCD seating arrangements in 2001/2,
    1. The then Professor-in-Charge of Examinations, who was present, said that it was developed by the then Dean (Academic) and himself and he had no inputs from Professor Rajeev Kumar in this matter.
    1. He also stated that the system was implemented for resolving the problem of seating arrangements in elective subject examinations and not because the students were copying.
    1. Professor Rajeev Kumar stated that he had given this input to the then Dean (Academic), who was not in IIT Kharagpur now.
    1. The then Dean (Academic), when contacted later by other faculty members, refuted the claim of Professor Rajeev Kumar, saying that this arrangement was not done because of any input from Professor Rajeev Kumar.
  1. Impact of widespread publication of the allegations:
    1. The Professor-in-Charge of Placement has said that this sort of baseless allegations widely published in media in such an irresponsible fashion would have a serious effect on placement of students. Companies were already asking questions.
    1. The Dean (Alumni and International Affairs) stated that this was casting aspersions on the Alumni and many have expressed their anguish and dismay at spreading of such news.
    1. Other faculty members stated that earning a reputation takes years and such reports bring a bad name in no time. Everyone was faced defending this wherever he or she went.
    1. All were very anguished as to how established media could publish such an article, which can cause damage that is very hard to repair, without proper facts and research.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aspects related to Transparency, Accountability, RTI

  1. [Transparency, Accountability]

    1. Professor Kumar claimed that the information was not sent to the media by him, but may have gone to media from the receivers end, obviously referring to the Institute Academic Administrators, namely Chairman Senate, Dean (Academic), Deans (Post-Graduate Studies & Research), etc.

    1. But data shows otherwise. For example, it has been found that, prior to the Senate Meeting, an email (obviously privileged communication) sent by Professor Rajeev Kumar to the Director and Chairman Senate was circulated by Professor Rajeev Kumar from his known google (gmail) account to hundreds of people in blind carbon copy (bcc) mode. Copies of this mail have also been received by a large section of faculty members of IIT Kharagpur. So, in spite of his assertion, he is clearly responsible for its wide circulation. Professor Kumar has not responded to requests to provide details of whom he has circulated the mail to.

    1. Professor Rajeev Kumar has publicly refuted claims that he gave an interview to a local Kharagpur newspaper in this matter. However, when asked specifically whether he discussed this with the Hindustan Times or not, he has kept silent. When a pointed question as why he did not refute the claims of Hindustan Times when he himself said that he has not made any comments on the CSE Department, he has refused to respond.

  1. [Post-facto RTI Application]
After making allegations of rampant copying, Professor Rajeev Kumar filed an RTI application in IIT Kharagpur, asking for minute details of examination schedule, seating arrangements, room dimensions, etc including his own department. This was filed after the Senate Meeting, after he failed to provide any evidence to his allegations in the Senate. This raises several issues.

    1. Firstly, he already had most of the relevant information as the examination schedule and room allocation is provided to all departments and circulated in the internal mail prior to examinations. Why did he ask for it by including peculiar details like actual room dimensions (length, width), size of each seat, does the room have a staircase, etc, which he knows are quite time consuming and possibly not really important, except for causing trouble to every department.

    1. Secondly, at least he could have spared his own department because that information was surely available with him or could have been easily collected by himself. One of his colleagues had to collate it for him, ask Prof Kumar to verify his own course and invigilation data. Professor Kumar did not even have the basic etiquette to save his colleague from the trouble. When people of the department asked who wanted this data, Prof Rajeev Kumar did not even have the courage to state that it was he who had filed the RTI. Is this how a ‘self proclaimed courageous activist’ works?

    1. Thirdly and most importantly, why was he trying to develop evidence now – post-facto - after making his allegations and spreading it all over? Why did he file it after it became clear in the Senate Meeting that he had no evidence to show on that day? Should he not have done this research much earlier?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Questions / Issues

  1. Why did Professor Rajeev Kumar make such a claim of ‘rampant copying’ to denigrate his own institution without placing any facts or data. Why did he work assiduously towards its wide circulation? Will his intentions not be considered malicious, especially when he is a member of the administration of the process, being a member of UGPEC for many years?

  1. Being a person who preaches transparency, accountability, right to information, why is he circulating confidential and privileged information in bcc all over the world, prior to the Senate Meeting? Afterwards, when IIT people want to know whom he has sent the mails, he refuses to divulge. Do the rules of transparency, accountability and right to information not apply to him? Is this not hypocrisy? Does the RTI Community approve of this?

  1. Should he not be labeled as a false whistle-blower who tries to defame others without evidence and with malicious personal interests? Is this not a blot on the illustrious ‘rights activists’ who fight for public good, including many who have graduated from IIT Kharagpur and have dedicated their lives to the cause without any personal interest? While the nation needs true whistle-blowers, do the acts of Professor Rajeev Kumar not harm the cause to a great extent? Is this proper activism?

  1. Should the media not be more responsible in publishing such sensational news? Why did the media not perform detailed research before trying to sensationalize the matter which spread like wild-fire all over the world and is seen in hundreds of sites? Isn’t the specific media person and Professor Rajeev Kumar connection in false reporting not becoming repetitive? Is this ethical journalism?



Thursday 3 March 2011

The Story of 'Pricey Laptops'


Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, Eklavya, JEE, 2006, IIT, RTI, Right To Information, Act, Ethical, Journalism
In the front page of Hindustan Times, Kolkata Edition
5th February, 2011

Hindustan Times (Internet Edition)
6th February, 2011
IIT Kharagpur pushing pricey laptops
Charu Sudan Kasturi, Hindustan Times
February 06, 2011
The Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, is pressurising faculty to purchase official laptops at 35-50% higher rates than the market price, thus causing a financial loss to the exchequer. Internal correspondence between faculty and administrators accessed by HT shows that IIT administrators denied faculty the option of purchasing laptops directly, even after they were alerted that the listed rates were vastly exaggerated.

A Dell laptop purchased directly costs Rs79, 000, but the same laptop will cost of Rs1,07,120 — a jump of 36% — when bought at institute-listed rate. With as many as 470 faculty members on the rolls, the buy at the exaggerated rates could cost about Rs15 million loss. Teachers at the institute can seek laptops for either their projects or under any of the several government schemes.
But top administrators —including the Dean of the Sponsored Research and Industrial Consultancy (SRIC) and officials in charge of purchase in the computer science department have allegedly ignored requests from faculty to probe the “scam”.

The correspondence shows the IIT administration had asked senior computer science professor Rajeev Kumar to either purchase the laptop under the institute rates, or not purchase it at all. “We are only insisting that institute-determined rates are followed in the purchase. The institute rates are official, those obtained by individual faculty members are not,” an  administrator said.
But he could not explain why the IIT has not bothered to review its rates even after officials were alerted that the rates were inflated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Clarification Issued by IIT Kharagpur
5th February, 2011

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored Research & Industrial Consultancy
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

February 5, 2011


It has been observed that certain information is being circulated in connection with a purchase requisition for a laptop submitted by Professor Rajeev Kumar from a SRIC project (code: VLS-8) of which he is the Principal Investigator (PI). Relevant information about this purchase requisition is summarized below:

  1. A purchase requisition dated 13th December 2010 was submitted by PI for a laptop referencing Empanelment of Vendors for the purpose of CPDA.
  2. Some of the observed discrepancies in the purchase requisition include:
    1. CPDA Empanelment Order is not an applicable Rate Contract for Purchase of Laptop from Projects.
    2. Submission of single quote with validity of one day.
    3. No comparison against valid quotations obtained in response to formal enquiry for this purchase.
    4. Requirement of full advance payment.
    5. Purchase Committee did not recommend the purchase proposal.
    6. Moreover, initial quote was in the name of Professor Rajeev Kumar with delivery in Hyderabad (copy enclosed) with a Hyderabad contact phone number. The phone number belongs to Mr Sanchit Bansal, Microsoft India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad 500032 as available from the phone records (copy enclosed). We are given to understand that Professor Rajeev Kumar's son's name is Mr. Sanchit Bansal.

PI was informed on 16th December 2010 (copy enclosed) and again on 22nd December 2010 (copy enclosed) that there is no rate contract for purchase of laptop from projects and that the CPDA Empanelment Order is not applicable for this purpose.

PI was further intimated on 25th January 2011 (copy enclosed) that SRIC is unable to process the instant requisition further and that if he so desires, he may submit a fresh purchase requisition following standard purchase procedure. So far no such requisition has been received by SRIC.

Notwithstanding the innuendo being circulated at certain quarters, no valid purchase requisition for a laptop from any project under SRIC has been prevented without valid reason. SRIC would like to inform all Project Investigators that there is presently no Rate Contract for Laptops. Laptops can be purchased following standard purchase procedure norms, provided it has the sanction of the sponsor / competent authority. However, certain obvious irregularities and conflicts of interest should be avoided. Project Investigators are requested to contact the undersigned for any further clarifications.

Assistant Registrar



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Letter to Editor-in-Chief of Hindustan Times from IIT Kharagpur
6th February, 2011


Sponsored Research & Industrial Consultancy (SRIC)
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
Kharagpur – 721302, India

To
The Editor-in-Chief,
Hindustan Times
Hindustan Times House
18-20, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110001


February 06, 2011

Dear Sir,

This is to bring to your kind notice an article that appeared as the first news in the front page of Hindustan Times Kolkata Edition on February 5, 2011, a copy of which is enclosed. We understand that the same information has appeared in other editions later. This is in connection with the purchase requisition for a laptop submitted by Professor Rajeev Kumar to be purchased from a project administered through the Sponsored Research & Industrial Consultancy (SRIC) Unit of IIT Kharagpur.

The article is contrary to facts, thereby causing enormous damage to our reputation all over the world. Also, we are dismayed that no one from your esteemed newspaper considered it necessary to contact our office to obtain the relevant information and facts. This has hurt us to an extent that we cannot explain to you.

We do not wish to take up too much of your valuable time. A couple of aspects are highlighted below for your kind consideration:

  • We are enclosing scanned copy of a document that was circulated in our internal email that clarifies the situation to our faculty members. This will highlight the discrepancies and conflicts of interest in the purchase requisition.
  • The article in HT states that “Instead, the correspondence accessed by HT shows that the IIT administration asked senior computer science professor Rajeev Kumar to either buy a laptop at the institute’s rates, or not purchase it at all”. We do not know what documents establish that. We are not aware of anyone from HT requesting us for any information. From our clarification above (as enclosed) SRIC informed Professor Rajeev Kumar several times that there is no rate contract for project purchase and that he could purchase at the best price submitting valid quotations as per purchase procedure. It is not clear why a newspaper as reputed as HT should make such an allegation without giving us an opportunity to place the facts. Professor Rajeev Kumar has a choice of umpteen reputed places to obtain valid quotations and directly purchase the laptop, following standard procedure.

We could make a detailed rebuttal, but the above should be sufficient for a person of your stature to get the true picture quickly. From this you will clearly appreciate why we are so hurt that people of our country, collaborators all over the world and well-wishers, who hold us in good esteem, will get a wrong impression that will be almost impossible to wipe away unless you take it up yourself. We therefore urge you to consider immediately issuing a retraction of the news item in your papers at the same level of importance that the original news was flashed in the papers. We hope that you will kindly do the needful. We are eagerly looking forward to it.

Assistant Registrar


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter to Mr Charu Sudan Kasturi of Hindustan Times from IIT Kharagpur
8th February, 2011


To
Mr. Charu Sudan Kasturi
HT SPECIAL Correspondent
Hindustan Times

Dear Sir,
I am forwarding an e-mail as attachment file which is self explanatory. This is in connection with an article that appeared in the front page of Hndustan Times Kolkata Edition on February 05, 2011. Probably the column is meant for the most sensible news for your newspaper.
The article is contrary to facts as can be engisaged from the attached file. I draw your kind attention for taking necessary action at the earliest.

Regards,
Assistant Registrar


cc. 1) Mr. Sanjoy Narayan, Editor-in-Chief of Hindustan Times
     2) Dean SRIC, IIT Kharagpur


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Other Documents Circulated by IIT Kharagpur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sponsored Research & Industrial Consultancy (SRIC)
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
Kharagpur - 721302, India

Date: 16.12.2010

Ref: Requisition for purchase of laptop

  1. Upon clarification it is found that there is no available rate contract made by the Institute with any vendor for purchase of Laptop which can be used for project related procurement.
  2. PI may kindly consider procuring Laptop with desired specifications following Purchase Procedure of above Rs. 15,000/- and upto Rs. 1,00,000/-.
  3. Justification for need of laptop for the said project may please be provided along with the completed Purchase Requisition.

Administrative Officer (Projects)


To
Prof. Rajeev Kumar
Dept. of Comp. Sc, & Engg.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sponsored Research & Industrial Consultancy (SRIC)
Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur - 721302, India

No. IIT/SRIC/SAO/VLS8/2010
Date: December 22, 2010

Ref: E-mail of Prof. Rajeev Kumar, PI of VLS-8, dated Dec 21, 2010 on ‘Purchase of a Laptop’ out of the project fund.

Upon clarification received from the Institute, it is understood that at present there is no ‘rate contract’ for procurement of laptop(s). It was also learnt that in the last HODs meeting the purchase of laptops vide Office Order No. IIT/S&P/RC/CPDA/Laptops/2010-11 dated November 3, 2010, as regards ‘Empanelment of OEMs/Authorized Vendors for supply of Laptops, has been put on hold. It is, therefore, again earnestly requested that the PI may kindly consider procurement of laptop, as per desired specifications necessary for the project, following available Institute purchase procedure on comparing valid quotations of identical specifications and warranty terms. This will help us to avoid any kind of adverse audit observation and/or subsequent query from funding agency. It may please be noted that the quotation submitted by the PI showed that it was valid for only one day. To process the purchase requisition as per purchase procedure we need appropriate number of quotations with validity for a reasonable time so that the requisition can be processed and order is issued. It may also be noted that the purchase requisition needs to be routed through Chairman, Purchase Committee.
The purchase requisition for purchase of laptop along with all documents sent by the PI is returned herewith.
Submitted for information please.


Assistant Registrar

Through Dean SRIC

To
Prof. Rajeev Kumar
PI, VLS-8, Dept of Computer Science & Engineering




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

SPONSORED RESEARCH & INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANCY
IIT KHARAGPUR

No. IIT/SRIC/DEAN/2011
January 25, 2011

Sub: Purchase of Laptop from VLS 8 Project

The undersigned looked into the matter and noted the following in summary:

Based on a purchase requisition dated 13th December 2010 submitted by PI for purchasing a laptop referencing office order IIT/S&P/CPDA/Laptops/2010-11 dated Nov 3, 2010 (CPDA Empanelment Order), PI was informed vide note dated 16th December 2010 and again later (copies enclosed) that there existed no available rate contract for purchase of laptop for projects. However, PI insisted on the same framework for purchase in every subsequent response contending that the views of SRIC was erroneous. It is established that the CPDA Empanelment Order was not applicable for purchase of laptop for projects (copy enclosed). Also, Chairman of the Purchase Committee has not recommended the proposal citing several additional reasons (copy enclosed).

SRIC is unable to pursue this further and will treat this submission as closed. If PI wishes to procure the equipment required for the project, he may do so by submitting a fresh, complete purchase requisition as per applicable purchase procedure, duly recommended by the Chairman Purchase Committee, as suggested earlier.


Dean (SRIC)

To
Prof. Rajeev Kumar, PI, VLS-8
Department of Computer Sc. & Engineering

Copy to: Head. Department of Compuer Sc. & Engineering
Assistant Registrar (SRIC)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of a few Claims of the Report:

Claim 1:

The correspondence shows the IIT administration had asked senior computer science professor Rajeev Kumar to either purchase the laptop under the institute rates, or not purchase it at all.”

Facts, Contradictions and Questions: 

(a) Professor Rajeev Kumar’s purchase requisition had several discrepancies and clear conflicts of interest. IIT requested him several times to follow purchase norms (as clarified above) and complete his purchase, which would enable him to get the required equipment at the best price. He refused. Why was he not interested in obtaining three valid quotes which would have got him better price? Why was he so adamant in approval of the purchase based on a single quote, with shipping address of his son in Hyderabad? Why does Hindustan Times hide all this? Why is Hindustan Times not even bothered about this side of the story which highlights corrupt practices followed by the person (Professor Rajeev Kumar) who they try to depict as a hero?

(b) The letters from IIT never state that he was asked to ‘either purchase the laptop under the institute rates, or not purchase at all.’ If that was so, why would he be asked to follow purchase procedures between Rs 15,000/- to Rs 1.0 lakh, if IIT wanted him to buy a laptop worth more than Rs 1.0 lakh? Why does Hindustan Times overlook this simple fact and talk about IIT forcing Professor Rajeev Kumar to purchase a laptop worth more than Rs 1.0 lakh?

(c) Why doesn’t Hindustan Times produce the ‘correspondence’ it refers to in its news report to establish its position? Why doesn’t Hindustan Times bother to even reply to IIT?


Claim 2:

“A Dell laptop purchased directly costs Rs79, 000, but the same laptop will cost of Rs1,07,120 — a jump of 36% — when bought at institute-listed rate.”

Facts, Contradictions and Questions:

(a)     Professor Rajeev Kumar is himself aware (as depicted in his own comparative statement) that they are two different models, namely ‘Dell M4500’ and ‘Dell XPS’ and that they are not the same laptop. Why does Hindustan Times say that they are the same laptop?

(b)    Dell have themselves clarified, saying the following: ‘Since these two models belong to two different class of offerings with technical and warranty support differences – it is absolutely wrong to compare them technically and commercially’.  Why did Hindustan Times not get it clarified from IIT or Dell before making the above claim?

(c)     Documents above show that Professor Rajeev Kumar was never asked to buy his laptop at any institute specified rate and clearly told that no rate contract existed for laptops for project purchase. Why did Hindustan Times not get it clarified from the Institute before making such a claim?


Claim 3:

“But top administrators — including the Dean of the Sponsored Research and Industrial Consultancy (SRIC) and officials in charge of purchase in the computer science department have allegedly ignored requests from faculty to probe the “scam”.”


Facts, Contradictions and Questions:

(a)   How come Hindustan Times publishes this without talking to the relevant persons above? Why does it rely on the claim by Professor Rajeev Kumar?


(b)   On February 22nd, the Departmental Administrative Committee of the Computer Science Department at IIT Kharagpur met to discuss the above allegations made by Professor Rajeev Kumar. He was invited to be present and substantiate his allegations. He did not attend the meeting in spite of being available. He was requested by the Head over phone, but he simply did not come. Why did Professor Rajeev Kumar not have the courage to come and defend his allegations?

(c)    Why is Hindustan Times not interested in a probe in the true ‘scam’, that is, the deep conflicts of interest clearly seen in the purchase requisition of Professor Rajeev Kumar where the shipping address is provided as Hyderabad and contact number of his son? Does it not consider this to be a corrupt practice or ‘scam’? Why does Hindustan Times blindly support Professor Rajeev Kumar in spite of being provided evidence of wrong-doings? Why does not Hindustan Times identify him as a ‘false whistle-blower’? Is this ethical journalism?