Clarification on 'IIT Kharagpur pushing pricey laptops'
HT has over the last few days received personalized, defamatory, slanderous and threatening comments from anonymous individuals questioning the credibility of a news report IIT Kharagpur pushing pricey laptops published on February 6, 2011. Documentsdelhi Updated: Mar 07, 2011 16:27 IST
HT has over the last few days received personalized, defamatory, slanderous and threatening comments from anonymous individuals questioning the credibility of a news report IIT Kharagpur pushing pricey laptops published on February 6, 2011.
A statement sent by the Sponsored Research and Industrial Consultancy (SRIC) Unit of IIT Kharagpur - stated that the IIT never had a rate list, though documents show otherwise.
Below (or on the NET) we are placing all the documents - as opposed to handpicked, select documents quoted by anonymous slanderers - pertaining to the case, followed by the SRIC letter to HT and the response of the HT correspondent, for our readers to draw their own conclusions.
Doc 1: Institute Circular No IIT/S&P/RC/CPDA/Laptops/2010-11, dated 03/11/10 listing the price list for laptops approved by the competent authority. (Pages 1-8)
Doc 2: Email from faculty member Rajiv Kumar to Sumit Biswas, Administrative Officer Projects, seeking the purchase of a laptop for a project, and the response from Biswas informing Kumar of the presence of Doc 1, which IIT later claimed never existed. Dated 24/11/10. (Pages 9-10)
Doc 3: A comparative statement of prices of laptops, showing that laptops with the same or superior features available according to the IIT price list for Rs 1,07,000 each were available in the market for Rs 79,000. Prices of laptops can vary daily, but rarely fluctuate enough to account for this discrepancy. (Page 11)
Doc 4: The letter from Kumar to the SRIC, dated 13/12/10 pointing out that the rate list suggested to him contained highly exaggerated prices. (Page 12)
Doc 5: The letter received by Kumar on 16/12/10 from assistant registrar, SRIC, contradicting Biswas and claiming that no rate list existed, and Kumar's email response. (Pages 13-15).
Doc 6: The notice dated 22/12/10 - six Days after Doc 5 -- from the SRIC stating that the Deans and Heads of Department had now decided to put the rate list on hold - confirming that the rate list did exist, and contradicting Doc 5. It is unclear how HoDs can overrule a price list approved by the Director. (Page 16)
Doc 7: Kumar's response, dated 24/12/10 and his communication by email dated 3/01/11 with the Sunando Das Gupta, Associate Dean, SRIC in which Kumar points out that his request for the purchase of a laptop at cheaper rates is being held up. (Pages 17-21)
Doc 8: The circular dated 13/1/11 from the IIT registrar stating that the Institute HoDs and Deans had decided to approach the HRD ministry for clarifications on whether laptops could be purchased from the CPDA scheme, putting the purchases through the scheme on hold, and once again referring to Doc 1 -- which Doc 5 and the SRIC statement to HT (later) claim did not exist. (Page 22)
Doc 9: The note, dated 18/1/11, by the chairman, purchase committee of Kumar's department dismissing the cheaper Rs 79,000 laptop, the decision by the SRIC Dean, and Kumar's email to them arguing how by dismissing the cheaper laptop, he was effectively being pushed to purchase the laptop through the Institute dealers offering exaggerated prices. (Page 23-28)
Doc 10: The SRIC letter to HT and our correspondent's response. (Page 29-30)