NATIONAL ACCREDITATION BOARD FOR EDUCATION & TRAINING QUALITY COUNCIL OF INDIA. Accreditation Scheme for EIA Consultant Organizations

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "NATIONAL ACCREDITATION BOARD FOR EDUCATION & TRAINING QUALITY COUNCIL OF INDIA. Accreditation Scheme for EIA Consultant Organizations"

Cora Walsh
5 years ago
Views:

1 NATIONAL ACCREDITATION BOARD FOR EDUCATION & TRAINING QUALITY COUNCIL OF INDIA QCI Office, 2 nd Floor, Institution of Engineers Building, BSZ Marg, New Delhi Accreditation Scheme for EIA Consultant Organizations Minutes of 4 th Accreditation Committee Meeting for Review of Decisions held on November 11, 2011 from Hrs to Hrs Present 1. Prof. C. K. Varshney - Member 2. Dr. B. Sengupta - Member 3. Dr. S. Devotta - Member Leave of absence was granted to Dr. Prodipto Ghosh, Prof. B.B. Dhar, Mr. K.P. Nyati and Mr. Chandra Bhushan. In absence of Dr. Prodipto Ghosh, Prof. C. K. Varshney chaired the meeting. Technical Committee was represented by Shri. Paritosh C. Tyagi NABET was represented by: Mr. A. K. Ghose Principal Advisor, Abhay Sharma Executive and Ms. Preeti Pawaria The following were discussed/ decided: 1. Cases put up for consideration (as per Sl. No. of receipt by NABET) i. Eco Chem Sales and Service, Surat ii. Envirocare Consultants, Vadodra iii. Indus Financial & Technical Consultants, Raipur iv. M. K. Ray - Individual v. San Envirotech Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vi. Jessica Karia- Individual vii. Consulting Engineers Group Ltd., Jaipur viii. SNC- LAVALIN Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Noida ix. Rajesh Puranik - Individual x. V. K. Singh- Individual xi. Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Delhi xii. Clean Technologies, Bangalore 2. Cases not considered: Minutes of 4th AC Meeting for Review of Decisions: November 11, 2011 Page 1

2 a. S/Shri. M. K. Ray, Jessica Karia, Rajesh Puranik and V. K. Singh have applied as individuals in their personal capacity for review. Since QCI cannot accredit individuals hence their requests cannot be entertained. b. Envirocare Consultants, Vadodara have not responded to complete their inadequacies as communicated earlier. In view of outstanding inadequacies, a review cannot be taken up. c. Indus Financial & Technical Consultants, Raipur have requested postponement of consideration of their case to next month since their key person (Mr. Lalit Singhania) to explain the case is not available to attend this meeting. d. San Envirotech Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad has withdrawn their request for Review of Decision vide their mail dated October 31, Balance 5 Cases (out of 12) considered i. Eco Chem Sales and Service, Surat The grounds mentioned by the applicant for the review and the Accreditation Committee s (AC) views on the same are mentioned in the table below Points raised by Eco Chem Sales and Service Experts (07 Nos.) who have not been approved have more than 15 years experience in their respective Sectors/ functional areas. Hence, their cases must be re-considered. Hitesh Desai- proposed as FAE- GS has vast experience in the FA, hence, he must be exempted from the qualification requirements. R.N. Parikh he has extensive experience in the FA (SE) and hence should be re-considered. P. S. Patel- proposed as EC for # 9 (cement) was not approved due to inadequate sectoral experience. But he has 18 years of experience in cement industry and more than 10 years of EIA The assessment has been done by two experienced NABET assessors based on the documents submitted and detailed interaction with the experts. The experts mentioned in the review request were not recommended either due to inadequate knowledge of the sector/ functional area or inadequate EIA related experience, as required by the scheme. Hence, there is no ground for reconsideration of the decisions for these cases. The concerned expert did not meet the minimum qualification requirements of the Scheme. Hence, his case cannot be re-considered. Assessment of the concerned expert was also carried out but he was found to be inadequate in respect of knowledge of FA. Hence, there is no ground to re-consider his case. The earlier decision was based on the absence of adequate documentation regarding his EIA related experience. The documentation has now been provided which shows that he meets Minutes of 4th AC Meeting for Review of Decisions: November 11, 2011 Page 2

3 Points raised by Eco Chem Sales and Service related experience the requirements of experience. Hence, the concerned expert is approved for # 9 -Cat. A. Rekha Shah- approved EC for # 19 (excluding manmade fibers). Ms Shah carried out several projects in manmade fiber units and hence her experience for the same must be considered. The earlier decision was based on the absence of adequate documentation regarding his EIA related experience. The documentation has now been provided which shows that she meets the requirements of experience. The experience shown is acceptable. Hence, the concerned expert is approved for # 19 (Textiles, including manmade fibers) - Cat. A. R. A. Christian should be considered for AQ Mr. Christian s name was proposed for AP, WP in original application. AP was not approved on experience grounds and for WP clarifications were sought in AC meeting XXVII dated March 08, Eco Chem informed on March 21, 2011 that the expert was not proposed for WP. NABET does not have any documentary evidence of Eco Chem having proposed Mr. Christian name for AQ prior to stage III assessment. Hence, Eco Chem request for considering Mr. Christian name for AQ cannot be considered. ii. Consulting Engineers Group Ltd., Jaipur Request for the review of decision of Accreditation Committee as received from Consulting Engineers Group Ltd. was discussed in detail. Points raised by Consulting Engineers Group Ltd. S. S. Sharma- proposed as FAE- EB is B.Sc. followed by 2 yrs Forestry course conducted by Northern Forest Rangers College, DDN and had long career in Forest Deptt. Of Rajasthan Govt. The above 2 yrs course should be considered equivalent to Masters Degree and in view of his vast exp in Forest service, he should be considered as FAE EB. Renu Jain- proposed as EC for # 4, 34 & 37 and as FAE for AQ, AP, and WP & SHW. M/s CEG could not produce any document from concerned authorities confirming that the said Forestry course is equivalent to Masters Degree. In view of this, request of CEG cannot be considered. EIA was a subject of the curriculum that was followed during her teaching Minutes of 4th AC Meeting for Review of Decisions: November 11, 2011 Page 3

4 Points raised by Consulting Engineers Group Ltd. Her EIA related experience during teaching was accepted & she was approved as EC for # 34 (Highways). Her experience during teaching and subsequent assignments should be taken into account & she should be considered for sectors 4, 37 and the functional areas as well. K. C. Sharma- proposed as EC- # 34(Highways) was not recommended due to inadequate experience. He, in fact has long experience in this sector & hence should be re-considered. Experts (10 Nos.) who have not been approved, have vast experience in their respective Sectors/areas, hence, their case must be re-considered. assignments at MNIT, Jaipur & hence the same was accepted as EIA related experience to meet the requirements of 7 yrs EIA related experience She also fulfilled the sectoral exp of # 34 (Highways) and hence was approved for that sector. She did not fulfill the sectoral exp req. for # 4 & 37 and hence was not approved for these sectors. Her request for being considered or FAE AQ was found relevant & hence she is being approved as FAE AQ Cat. A. Her EIA related experience in AP & SHW was found inadequate & FA experience in WP was also found inadequate. Hence, she was not recommended for these FAs. From the submissions made by CEG, AC did not find any rationale for re-consideration of the same. In the original experience list submitted by CEG for Shri. Sharma, EIA related was shown as a part of his experience for only 1 project. In response to clarification sought by NABET, EIA was shown to be included by a hand written correction on the same list for other highway projects also. To substantiate their above claim CEG may please submit documentary evidence of Shri. Sharma being involved in EIA part of such projects & the exact role he was involved in. The assessment has been done by two experienced NABET assessors based on the documents submitted and detailed interaction with the experts. The experts mentioned in the review request were not recommended either due to inadequate knowledge of the sector/ functional area or inadequate EIA related experience, as required by the scheme. Hence, there is no ground for reconsideration of the decisions for these cases. Minutes of 4th AC Meeting for Review of Decisions: November 11, 2011 Page 4

5 iii. SNC- LAVALIN Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Noida Request for the review of decision of Accreditation Committee as received from SNC- LAVALIN Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Noida was discussed in detail. Points raised by SNC- LAVALIN Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Noida Mohammad Akhtar proposed as EC- # 4, 9, 29, 34, 37 and FAE AP, AQ, NV, and SHW. He was approved as EC for # 34 (highway only) Cat. A and as FAE AP (Cat. A), AQ (Cat. A). He has experience in other sectors & FAs also and hence, the same should also be considered. Md. Akhtar was assessed by two experienced NABET assessors. During interaction with him, his knowledge about sectors # 4, 9, 29 & 37 was found to be inadequate. Similarly, for FAs, he was not approved for NV & SHW due to inadequate knowledge in these FAs. Md. Akhtar was assessed for the above during his tenure with M/s ICT. He has since left ICT & joined SNC LAVALIN. Sectors 4 & 9, in any case, were not included in the scope of M/s SNC LAVALIN original application. Hence, these cannot be considered on this ground as well. In view of the above, there is no rationale for reconsideration of the decision by the AC. iv. Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Request for the review of decision of Accreditation Committee as received from Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Delhi was discussed in detail. Points raised by Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Dr. Harcharan Singh Rumana has been approved for EB Cat. B. He has considerable exp of EB for Cat. A projects as well. Hence, he should be considered for Cat. A instead of Cat. B. Sh. Yamesh Sharma has been approved for sector 1 (Mining-OC Cat. B) & sector 3 (River Valley- Cat. B). Sh. Sharma has carried out EIA projects in these sectors for Cat. A also. Hence, he should be considered for Cat. A in these Sectors. Sh. Sanjeev Sharma was proposed as FAE AP, AQ, NV & SHW. He was approved for AQ Cat. A. He also, has considerable experience in AP, NV & SHW and hence, should be considered for The experience shown by Dr. Rumana is acceptable. Hence, the concerned expert is approved for EB- Cat. A. The experience shown by Sh. Sharma is acceptable. Hence, the concerned expert is approved for #1 (Mining-OC) Cat. A and # 3 (River Valley) Cat. A. In spite of reminders from NABET experience details furnished by Mantec for Shri. Sharma were not in correct format. The applicant may be informed that he should submit the details in Minutes of 4th AC Meeting for Review of Decisions: November 11, 2011 Page 5

6 Points raised by Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd., these FAs also. format Annexure IV B in next 15 days, failing which the request for review is liable to be rejected. v. Clean Technologies, Bangalore Request for the review of decision of Accreditation Committee as received from Clean Technologies, Bangalore was discussed in detail. Points raised by Clean Technologies Clean technologies original application (S No. 138) was not approved since eligible experts for core FAs could not be proposed by them. They have since submitted their revised application (S No. 313) and have requested to consider the same on priority. NABET is taking up application strictly on the basis of S Nos. allocated based on date of receipt. This approach is being universally applied. Hence, Clean Technologies request for considering their revised application on priority could not be considered. 4. Additional item taken with the permission of Chairman Guidelines for taking up requests for Review of Decisions These additional Accreditation Committee (AC) Meetings are organized to review the cases for Request of Review of Decisions. The principle of natural justice should be followed. Primarily, the applicant should be given a chance to present their cases mentioning what they find wrong in the original decision/s. No claim beyond original application can be made as a part of these representations. Only substantial errors/ mistakes on procedural matters would be taken for consideration. As regards technical issues, the decision on the same has already been taken by AC while considering the case originally. Since competent Assessors have carried out detailed assessment including interview of the experts proposed, any claim that the assessment does not reflect the performance of proposed expert during the interview, cannot be accepted. It is not possible to accommodate requests for deviation from the Scheme or from the substantiative guidelines that are being followed while considering the cases for accreditation. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair. Vipin Sahni Director NABET Minutes of 4th AC Meeting for Review of Decisions: November 11, 2011 Page 6

INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES NOIDA

INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES NOIDA MANDATORY DISCLOSURE- PGDM PROGRAMME The information has been provided by the concerned institution and the onus of authenticity lies with the Institution and not