Editor,
The Government of Meghalaya under the Department of Meghalaya Urban Affairs received huge funds from the Ministry of Urban Affairs for the development of urban amenities in the state. One such scheme is the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNURM). Under the scheme, the Meghalaya Government has purchased fleet of buses and maxi cabs amounting to several crore rupees during last few years in order to meet the transport requirements of the public in Shillong. The transport service is called Shillong Public Transport Service (SPTS).
These buses and maxi cabs have been leased out to the NGOs at a throwaway price. It was revealed that for the maxi cabs the NGOs are paying around Rs 280 to Rs.300 daily per cab to the MUDA, whereas the drivers of these cabs are paying to the NGOs Rs.1000 daily per cab in cash after meeting fuel costs and their food and snacks. The same arrangement goes for the buses but the bus drivers have to pay much higher daily collections to the respective NGOs on a daily basis. Here lies the crux of the problem. The vehicles belong to the Government but the real earnings from the vehicles are enjoyed by the NGOs and if there is wear and tear, repairs and major breakdowns the Government has to bear all the expenses. What type of agreements have been entered into by the government and the NGOs? If this is not a huge scam then what is it? Will the New Urban Affairs Minister, Mr. R.V Lyngdoh, endorse what has been done by the former Urban Affairs Minister? Will he scrap the agreements already made earlier or what will he do to set matters right?
Another aspect to this is that a good number of buses and maxi cabs are lying in a state of disrepair and also a good number of them are lying idle in the respective parking yards of the NGOs. Who can give an answer to such colossal waste of public properties bought from public funds? Shall we, the public, allow and tolerate such shady deals happening before our eyes?
Yours etc.,
Philip Marweiñ,
Shillong-2.
NEHU violates UGC regulations
Editor,
With reference to the above we wish to inform that in 2012, NEHU conducted interviews for CAS promotions as per UGC regulation 20 (I) O. In keeping with NEHU Statute 20(6), the recommendations of the selection committee were put up to the Executive Council of the University which accepted the recommendations and so did the promotees. The selection committees had clearly mentioned the effective dates for promotions of respective candidates in their recommendations, keeping in view the eligibility as per the UGC regulation 2010, assessment of research and performance in the interview. Now, six years later the University is changing the dates of promotion making it effective from dates earlier than those recommended by the selection committee. This tantamounts to changing the recommendation of the selection committee and it is in contravention of the Statute 20(6) which states as follows: “If the Executive Council is unable to accept the recommendations made by a selection committee, it shall record its reason and submit the case to the Visitor for final orders.” It is clear from the above that the Executive Council cannot change the selection committee recommendations. It can accept or reject. In the latter case it has to be referred to the Visitor. Here even this question does not arise as the Executive Council has already accepted the recommendations. Under such circumstances, we urge the media to enquire into the matter, since UGC is the highest Regulatory Body of higher education in the country. We are very concerned and would like to see the University maintain and uphold the sanctity befitting a Centre of Excellence. Your prompt action will save this university and help prevent gross violation of the Statutory provisions.
Yours etc.,
A. S. Mawphlang,
NEHU