Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Prof pankaj chandna letter


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Prof pankaj chandna letter

  1. 1. Registered Post Dated: 08.11.2010 The Assistant Registrar (Exam-II) Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra 136119 Haryana Subject: Reply to the Complaint by Sh. Mahesh Kumar Gupta regarding Plagiarism-Copy Rights violation. Refer to your letter no. AR (R-H)/S-III/653-54, dated 28.05.10 and further communications in this regard, it is submitted that the complaint filed by Sh. Mahesh Kumar Gupta is false, frivolous, irrelevant, and baseless. There is no plagiarism-copy right violation as falsely alleged in the complaint rather it is my original work done under the kind supervision of my guide Dr. SK Sharma. The present complaint is the case of personal vendetta and the matter has been dragged to university just to harass me for his personal grudge. However, to substantiate this I would like to submit the following for your kind considerations: 1)The main title of the dissertation Production Planning Problems in Engineering Industry has been duly approved in the then BOS of Mechanical Engineering and is exactly the same as the title mentioned in dissertation copy submitted and further evaluated for partial fulfillment of the requirement of M Tech degree (Title Page of the dissertation -Annexure 1) in the year 1991. However, main title also consists of subtitle which reflects the content of the work, which has also been corroborated under para 1 of the enquiry report submitted by Dr. Nand Lai. Therefore, the charges against the officers/officials of Kurukshetra University and the then REC Kurukshetra are baseless and false; which prima-facie reflects the ill-intentions of the complainant. 2)The dissertation submitted by me is purely the original work done by me and not a verbatim copy of the project work reported by Sh. Yogesh Saxena as falsely alleged in the complaint and the same may be concluded / verified from the following facts: a. Literature review section reported in both the dissertations differ significantly (Page 6-7 of dissertation submitted by me and Page 11-12 of Dissertation by Sh.Yogesh Saxena). The search decision rules discussed by Mr. Yogesh Saxena (Page 21 of his dissertation) is completely absent in the literature section of the dissertation submitted by me (Page 12). The problem has been solved with different variant of goal programming which can be elucidated from Page 22-23 of the dissertation submitted by me; that explains the solution technique used for solving the problem dataset. ^- ■f If
  2. 2. -—IMS —■b. Section 4.3 explains the procedure to implement goal programming and method of analysis which clearly indicates the steps involved (Page 22-24 of dissertation by Pankaj Chandna). A computer program based upon the modified variant of Lee goal programming technique was developed by me and this section clearly indicates the data input, output and calculations to be made for the results of the program. Comparison of this section (4.3 of my dissertation) and section 3.3 (Page 26-29 of dissertation by Sh. Yogesh Saxena) clearly shows that the procedure and the steps followed were entirely different in both the cases. This clearly reveals that the work done in my dissertation is purely my own work and has no relevance with the work reported by Sh. Yogesh Saxena.c. Further, the computer program based upon the aforesaid approach was developed and run by me on the the dataset being provided by my guide and solved in the computer lab of the Electrical engineering department of the then REC Kurukshera (as no computer lab was available in the Mechanical Engineering Department). It is worth mentioning that the program was developed with the help of few faculty members whose contribution has been duly acknowledged in the Acknowledgement section of the dissertation submitted by me. The program was run before the external examiner at the time of viva-voce and the output of the program generated by the computer is attached herewith for your ready reference (Page 54-61 of Dissertation by Pankaj Chandna-Annexure 2). The comparison of the results/ output of the program reported in both the cases vary significantly. In this regard, some of the points are explained below for your kind attention: i. Length of the output of the program (Page 54-58 of the dissertation by Pankaj Chandna) is of more lines (307 lines) as compared to the output reported in appendix-II of the dissertation by Sh. Yogesh Saxena (Annexure 3); which is of 292 lines which clearly indicate that the program developed by me was entirely different. ii. The values obtained in the output of the program (Page 54-55 of the dissertation by Pankaj Chandna) vary significantly from the output reported in appendix-II of the dissertation by Sh. Yogesh Saxena (Annexure 3). iii. Values of Zj-Cj matrix obtained are entirely different (Page 59 of Dissertation by Pankaj Chandna) when compared with the corresponding values reported in the dissertation by Sh. Yogesh Saxena (Annexure 3). iv. The comparison of the results shows the variation in the values of slack analysis reported (Page 60 of the dissertation of Pankaj Chandna and appendix-II of the dissertation by Sh. Yogesh Saxena). v. Values obtained of the variable analysis (Page 61 of the dissertation by Pankaj Chandna) of the results again vary significantly and suggests that program run by me provided different results in comparison to the results reported by Sh. Yogesh Saxena (Annexure 3).Comparison of these values and facts explained above shows that the work of my dissertationis totally different and indicates the variation of the values in every part of the results obtainedwith a different program developed. The attached results (Page 54-61 of my dissertation) clearlyshows that these are the direct output of the program run on the computer and which was then verifiedand evaluated by the external examiner. It is pertinent
  3. 3. to mention here that even a slight change in the results by application of modified techniques/ theories can be of significant importance in applied engineering research, but in my case there is a significant variation in the results as explained above. The reported work allows the continuation of further research in that direction and this dissertation is a small project work done at PG level with limited IT facilities that too about 20 years back. The enquiry officer Dr. Nand Lai also admitted in his report vide by Para 2 that there are differences of few words here and there; but the respected officer failed to appreciate that the minor differences in the world of science and technology can be of paramount importance, therefore, prime facie the enquiry officer also accepted the difference between two dissertations.3)It is further submitted that merely submission of dissertation has not made thedeclaration of the final result. It was only after the viva voce examination conducted bya committee constituted by the university; including the then chairman of theMechanical Engineering Department, External examiner deputed by the university andthe internal supervisor. All these members along with few other faculty members of thedepartment were very much present during viva voce examination. The final result wasdeclared only after the submission of the report of external examiner after vivavoce examination.4)Moreover during my MTech studies I never visited IIT Delhi and at the same time Ihad never met Sh. Yogesh saxena or Dr. N Singh and whatsoever work has beenreported in my dissertation is my own work under the able guidance of my supervisorwhich has also been certified by my guide stating that this dissertation is a record ofcandidates own work carried out by him under his supervision. Also the complaint is timebarred as it has been filed after a gap of around 20 years and is not maintainableand has been filed just to harass me for his personal grudge.5)Here I want to submit that I have been a meritorious student throughout my academiccareer since matriculation examination (Resume of Pankaj Chandna-Annexure 4). Isecured more than 81% marks (merit) in matriculation examination. I was the l(f h rankerin Haryana state during my higher secondary examination. I did my graduation inMechanical Engineering from a reputed institute i.e. Regional Engineering CollegeKurukshetra with honors. I joined the faculty of Mechanical Engineering Department ofREC Kurukshetra in1994 and since then I have published more than thirty five researchpapers into International/National journals/conferences and have been the reviewer ofthree international journals (Annexure 5). I am supervising 06 PhD scholars and havesupervised 20 MTech & 12 UG projects till date. I have been felicitated with oneinternational and one national award (Annexure 6). During my professional career, Ihave brought laurels to my institute many a times; to mention, recently I have beenappreciated by His Excellency Governor of Haryana and Board of Governors, NITKurukshetra for my contributions (Annexure 7).6)The complainant is not an affected party at all and he has no iocus standi to make thisfalse frivolous and baseless complaint. This complaint is the clear cut case of personalvendetta. The complainant Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta and his wife are my colleaguesand have been working in the Mechanical Engineering Department of NIT Kurukshetraalongwith me for more than 14 years. In 2007, NIT Kurukshetra advertised the post ofassistant professor and I and wife of the complainant Smt. Meenu Gupta applied for thesame, I had been selected for the post of assistant professor but unfortunately the wife ofthe complainant could not succeed. Since then, the complainant and his wife startedhaving ill intentions against me and as a result of which, the wife of the complainantfiled a writ petition CWP No. 7966 of 2008 in the Honble Punjab and Haryana Highcourt Chandigarh against my selection and both of them openly threatened me in thedepartment that they will not spare me and will go to any extent and this complaint isalso the outcome of the same. It is important to mention here that the Hon ble Punjab andHaryana High Court have already heard the arguments and has not granted any relief to the wifeof complainant till date.In the light of the above submissions it is very much clear that the present complaint isfalse, frivolous and baseless and with the sole motive of mental, physical and financialharassment /mental agony to me. There is no verbatim and violation of copyright in thiscase. Mr. Yogesh Saxena never objected to my dissertation and there is no such proofexists on the file and at the same time it is also clear that there is no proof regardingverbatim on the file. Therefore, I respectfully pray Honble Authorities to file thepresent false complaint by considering the aforesaid submission and withdraw theshow cause notice with immediate effect in the interest of justice.It is further submitted that my physical presence may be sought any time by theauthorities for any sort of clarifications / queries in this regard. Further, the contents ofthe complaint are highly defamatory against me as well as against the university and Ireserve my right to initiate legal proceedings against the complainant in the competentcourt of jurisdiction.Thanking You,Sincerely Yours,
  4. 4. (Dr. Pankaj Chandna)Associate Professor, IBMDepartment of MechanicalEngineering National Institute ofTechnology Kurukshetra.Enclosures: Annexure 1-7