8/9/2019 Proctor Office Denies LIU Exists-RTI Reply

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/proctor-office-denies-liu-exists-rti-reply 1/3

8/9/2019 Proctor Office Denies LIU Exists-RTI Reply

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/proctor-office-denies-liu-exists-rti-reply 2/3

8/9/2019 Proctor Office Denies LIU Exists-RTI Reply

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/proctor-office-denies-liu-exists-rti-reply 3/3

ToThe Proctor/ Appellate Authority   A.M.U, Aligarh Dated: 31.05.2010

Subject- Misleading and incomplete information being provided under RTI liable to beproceeded against the CIC under relevant provision of RTI Act.

Sir,

I filed an RTI to the CAPIO of AMU, Aligarh which was received with vide Ref No.50/CAPIO/F/10-11 dated 13/04/2010 in its Office which sent it to the concerned CPIO, ProctorOffice. I received a reply from the CPIO/Proctor Office vide D.No 130/Proc dated 12-5-2010 which is not only misleading but seems to be false also for the following reasons:

1.  Proctor of Aligarh Muslim University goes on record in the news published in thefront page of The Indian Express on April 11, 2010 with the headlines “Shadow ofAMU’s spy wing on Siras sting” stating, “There is such a proctorial team on the

university. You can call it a local intelligence unit where students give information aboutcampus activities and unwanted elements. There are watch and ward staff who are salariedemployees. We also have students — proctoral monitors and deputy proctorial monitors —who act as campus monitors. The aim is to maintain law and order in the university.” Alsothe Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University went on record in the feature“Class Monitors’ published in Outlook, March 8 edition by stating, “There is nothingsecretive about the LIU and it is not policing”. Therefore it is impossible that LIUneither exist nor existed in the past when the Vice-Chancellor of this institution isdefending its presence to the national media. So the reply is false. 

2.  Proctor has also mentioned to the Indian Express that in the LIU students giveinformation about campus activities and unwanted elements. There must a selection

criterion and process through which some students are entrusted by the LIU. So theanswer is misleading.

3.  In the reply given by the CPIO in the point no 3 & 4, the information look misleadingfor the same reason mentioned above.

4.  The reply to point no.5 also look misleading as it cant be so that students entrustedby the LIU to provide information about ‘campus activities and unwanted elements’would work without any benefit in lieu of it and university wont provide anyfacilities to them.

5.  The reply to point no 6 & 7 are totally false that the university authorities don’tpossess the I-Card of the students entrusted by the LIU to give information andthose salaried staff working in it as Proctor mentioned in the news report.

I request that my application may be disposed of to provide me with correct/completeotherwise I will have no other option but to move the CIC under Section 18(1) with ademand for penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI.Thanking you.

(Md. Adil Hossain)42-Aftab Hostel

Aftab Hall, A.M.UAligarh-202002