Tag: #EducationalInstitution

-Report by Himanshi Chauhan

In the recent case of Ruksana v. Jawahar Lal Nehru University, a writ petition was filed, in the Hon’ble Court for the violation of Articles 14 & 15 of the Indian Constitution, by the petitioner i.e. Ruksana. 

FACTS:

The petitioner i.e. Ruksana belongs to the OBC category. She applied for admission to the Ph.D course of “Social Exclusion & Inclusive Policy” at JNU for the academic year 2021-22. There were a total of 8 seats for the said course out of which only 2 are reserved for the OBC category. For admission in the said course, a computer-based test (CBT) was conducted by National Testing Agency. The petitioner took the test and secured Rank-08 in the OBC category. Therefore she was not selected for the course. 

But at the same time, Mr Shahid C. who secured Rank-07 in the OBC category was selected for the Ph.D course. He blocked his seat but had failed to submit his documents and certificates before 19.01.2022 which was the last date of admission according to the petitioner. Mr Shahid C. also via an email to the respondent university on 15.02.2022 requested the cancellation of the seat blocked by him.

Therefore, the petitioner is of the view that the vacant seat should have been offered to the petitioner as she was the next candidate on the merit list. Petitioner relied on clause 6.3 of the Admission Policy & Procedure 2021-22 notified by the JNU which provides that seats that remained vacant could be offered to the candidates next in the merit list.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

➢ The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that through the texts received by Mr Shahid C., it is evident that the last date for submitting documents and certificates was 19.01.2022 and in the event of the failure to submit requisite documents by 19.01.2022 the admission will be deemed as cancelled.

➢ He further contended that Mr Shahid C. had failed to submit the required documents by 19.01.2022, therefore, his admission will be deemed as cancelled. He also submits that Mr Shahid C. had also conveyed his intention to the respondent university to cancel his admission through an email.

➢ The learned counsel, therefore, urged that seat should have been offered to the petitioner due to the vacancy created.

➢ The learned counsel further submits that the last date for admission according to the timetable was 20.02.2021 but the fifth and final list was issued by the university on 28.01.2022 i.e. much later than the deadline. It clearly shows that the university itself did not adhere to the last date of admission.

➢ He further contended that the date of admission written on the Semester Registration Card of Mr Saddam Hussain is 04.03.2022 which is much later than the deadline for admission. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the respondent had the discretion in deciding whether candidates were to be admitted or not after the last date.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

➢ The learned counsel for the respondent submits that Mr Shahid C. was pursuing M. Phil from Pondicherry University but at the same time, he had blocked a seat for Ph.D. in JNU. But a student cannot be registered in two regular courses at the same time.

➢ The council draws the attention of the court to the circulars dated 24.12.2022 which provided that the students pursuing M. Phil from other universities had to submit the dissertation in their respective universities on or before 31.01.2022 and simultaneously had to submit a certificate with the JNU for confirming their admission in Ph.D. program. 

➢ The counsel further submits that Mr Shahid C. kept the seat blocked till the final merit list i.e. on 28.01.2022 and accordingly, no vacant seat was available which could be offered to the petitioner.➢ The learned counsel further submits that the cancellation of admission by Mr Shahid C. on 15.02.2022 was of no use to the petitioner as the admission process was already closed by then.

➢ As far as the date on the registration card of Mr Saddam Hussain was concerned, it was submitted that he had already blocked his seat in Ph.D. program in the first merit list itself. Further, due to Covid, the semester started late and the date mentioned in the registration card is the date on which the same was generated at the school/centre level.

➢ Therefore it was urged by the respondent university that they had acted in the four corners of the admission policy and the petitioner had no right to seek admission when there was no vacant seat available till the last merit list.

JUDGEMENT:

The Hon’ble court while deciding the case, referred to clause 6.3 of the Admission Policy & Procedure 2021-22 which makes it clear that only such seats which are vacant before the deadline for admission, shall be offered to the eligible candidates next in the merit list. But in the present case, Mr Shahid C. had blocked his seat till 15.02.2022 which was much later than the deadline for admission i.e. 28.01.2022. Therefore the seat in the Ph.D. program was not vacant till the admission process continued and the same could not be offered to the petitioner contrary to the mandate of clause 6.3 of the Admission Policy & Procedure, 2021-22.

The court thus held that as there was no vacant available, the petitioner cannot claim the right to admission against the said seat and no mandamus can be issued directing the respondent institute to grant admission to the petitioner contrary to the approved timeline.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/41Bn4c5

-Report by Karan Gautum

Heard Ganesh Datt Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Pathak, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner is an educational institution run by a society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, and Ram Yagya Chaudhary executed a registered gift deed of his agricultural land in favour of the petitioner’s institution on 20.9.2016. However, the Assistant Inspector General (Registration) reported that the gift deed was undervalued and the valuation was not shown on the market value. The dispute was referred to the Collector and the petitioner filed an objection. Stamp Case No.27/281/D-2016171404706 (State vs. Ram Yagya Tara Devi Chaudhary Inter College) was registered under Section 47A of the Stamp Act. The petitioner challenged the order dated 29.5.2017 and filed a Writ Petition No.3447 of 2018, granting interim protection to the effect that further recovery in pursuance of the impugned order shall remain stayed and the revision shall be decided by respondent no.1 within a period of 6 months.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

This Court passed an interim order granting four weeks’ time to file the counter affidavit and two weeks to file the rejoinder affidavit. It also directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the deficient stamp amount, which in the instant case is to the tune of Rs. 4,21,500/- and the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the amount fixed under the head of penalty, within one month from today. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted towards the amount directed to be deposited. The petitioner submitted that the demand of deficient stamp duty by the respondent authorities is illegal, as according to the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the value of the property as provided under Article 33 of Schedule I B of the Stamp Act will be applicable and the deficiency determined by the respondent nos. 1 & 2 based on market value is illegal. Counsel also submitted that the impugned orders be set aside and the writ petition be allowed.

RESPONDANT’S CONTENTION 

B.N. Pathak, learned standing counsel, submitted that the impugned order has been rightly passed and that the rate for the agricultural plot cannot be fixed for payment of stamp duty. He also cited Sections 27 & 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act to demonstrate that the power has been rightly exercised by the respondents against the petitioner. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The Court has held that on the ground of the future potential of the property, the stamp duty cannot be imposed in respect of the property in dispute. The true test for determination by the Collector is the market value of the property on the date of the instrument, as every instrument is required to be stamped before or at the time of execution.

JUDGEMENT

The judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (C) no. 66621 of 2010, Sumit Gupta vs State of U.P. and others, states that there is a difference in the language used in Article 33 of the Schedule I-B of the Act and Section 47-A of the Act when levying stamp duty on a gift-deed. The legislature has deliberately used the word “value of the property” in Article 33 while subjecting the gift to stamp duty and has refrained from using the term “market value”. This means that when the market value is not at all relevant, the provisions of the Act do not come into play which necessitates the determination of market value. This court has followed the earlier judgment of AWC 1087, Ram Khelawan alias Bachcha Vs State of U.P. and Shiva Dutt Mishra Vs. Commissioner Gorakhpur Division and 2 Others on the point of imposition of stamp duty on the gift deed in respect to the agricultural plot. Paragraphs 5,6 and 7 of these judgments.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3LpwS3J

CITATION: WRIT – C No. – 43196/2018

Introduction

The significance and relic of schooling in Kerala are highlighted by the state’s positioning as among the most educated in the country. The instructive change of Kerala was set off by the endeavors of the Congregation Mission Society ministers, who advanced mass training in Kerala, in the early many years of the nineteenth hundred years. The nearby dynastic antecedents of current Kerala — basically the Travancore Regal Family, the Nair Administration Society, Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDP Yogam) and Muslim Instructive Society (MES) — additionally gained a critical commitment to the headway on training in Kerala. Nearby schools were known by the general word kalaris, some of which showed combative techniques, yet other town schools run by Ezhuthachans were for bestowing general training. Christian preachers and English rule carried the advanced school schooling system to Kerala.

Present

Schools and universities are generally shown to the public authority, confidential trusts, or people. Each school is associated with either the State Gathering of Instructive Exploration or Preparing, Kerala (SCERT Kerala), the Focal Board for Auxiliary Training (CBSE), Indian Endorsement of Optional Instruction (ICSE), or the (NIOS). English is the language of guidance in most non-public schools, while government-run schools offer English or Malayalam as the vehicle of guidance. Government-run schools in the regions lining Karnataka and Tamil Nadu likewise offer guidance in Kannada or Tamil dialects. A small bunch of Government Sanskrit Schools give guidance in Sanskrit enhanced by Malayalam, English, Tamil or Kannada. Following 10 years of optional tutoring, understudies regularly select at Higher Auxiliary School in one of the three streams — aesthetic sciences, trade or science. After finishing the necessary coursework, understudies can sign up for general or expert degree programs. Kerala bested the Training Advancement Record (EDI) among 21 significant states in India in the year 2006-2007. In January 2016, Kerala turned into the first Indian state to accomplish 100 percent essential schooling through its proficiency program Athulyam. Around 18% of the complete representatives in the coordinated area of the state, both public and private, are utilized in the Instructive area as of Spring 2020. Kerala is likewise one of the Indian states which spends a bigger extent of its income on human asset improvement including instructive and medical care uplifting. Also, it is for the most part literate.

Issues looked in our legitimate schooling system in Kerala are:

1. Nonattendance of the prepared workforce to show interdisciplinary subjects of pertinence in the globalized setting: LL.M. qualified hands alone are deficient in conferring exhaustive information to understudies in the space of corporate regulations, innovation-based regulations, ecological regulation and so forth. The administrations of prepared faculty in different disciplines are required for giving powerful schooling to regulation understudies here. This inadequacy is most apparent in the absence of qualified staff to show specialized parts of arising innovation-based regulations like digital regulation.

2. Practically all-out shortfall of the road regulation experience: a definitive point of regulation in a socialized society is to guarantee that equity arrives at all. Since this implies that equity ought to win even on the roads among the discouraged of society-thus the wording ‘road regulation’. The shortfall of socially significant lawful schooling brings about concealment and disregarding the call of equity to act in different social circumstances. Legal counselors move on from graduate school with a thought process of bringing in cash from the calling, and disparaging common liberties regulation practice, as cash can’t be made by supporting poor people and minimized.

3. Absence of information on legitimate cycle among our new regulation alumni: Most understudies emerge from our conventional regulation universities in Kerala none excessively savvier regarding how to the genuine course of regulation. Years are spent simply getting book information on considerable and procedural regulation. One month or so committed to court practice, however, integrated into the course structure to give a vibe of a regular case to the understudy, is really a futile activity as the normal understudy scarcely comprehends what is truly happening in court.

4. Low quality of support among the larger part of legal counselors in the express: The craft of promotion isn’t shown exhaustively by our regulation educators, and is hurriedly referenced in a solitary course joining Lawful Drafting, Conveyance, Proficient Morals and Backing. Specialization in the specialty of drafting, conveyance, questioning, powerful talking and so forth are accessible just to a special minority who are sufficiently lucky to rehearse under an accomplished senior supporter.

5. Mediocre nature of showing society in our Express: The lazy culture common among regulation educators in showing their understudies is a peculiarity predominant in the law schools of our state. Most educators give the reason that understudies are not keen on learning, subsequently their “what’s the point” mentality. Frequently, be that as it may, just a minority of understudies are delinquent, while a larger part comes to school with the aim to concentrate on themselves.

Legal Aid

Article 14 of the Constitution of India discusses uniformity under the steady gaze of regulation and Article 39A accommodates equivalent equity and free legitimate guide.

“Article 39A of the Constitution of India accommodates comprehensive methodology in giving equity to the prosecuting parties. It not just incorporates giving free legitimate guide by means of an arrangement of advice for the defendants, yet additionally incorporates guaranteeing that equity isn’t denied to disputing parties because of monetary challenges.”

The State, which has been commanded by Article 39A of the Constitution to guarantee that the activity of the overall set of laws advances equity by giving free legitimate guide and that potential open doors for getting equity are not denied to any resident by reason of monetary or different incapacities, has not had the option to make a compelling component for making equity available to poor people, discouraged and burdened. In last more than twenty years, the foundation of the lawful administration specialists has delivered yeoman’s administration in the field of giving a legitimate guidance to the poor yet a ton is expected to be finished for guaranteeing equity to the financially denied segment of the general public and the people who experience the ill effects of different handicaps like lack of education and obliviousness.

Rebuilding Legitimate Guide Facilities

The Clinical Legitimate Schooling development is picking up speed in India however much it is universally. As legally necessary, numerous graduate schools have set up lawful guide centers. A portion of these facilities is utilitarian, while others are either on paper or non-useful. There is a particular need to redesign and change these facilities to meet one of the public or global principles. Local area mindfulness is the essential capability of these centers. There is interest for individuals to know the regulations, their privileges, commitments and legislative approaches. Legitimate guide centers make public mindfulness through lawful training projects like studios, public addresses, social events, banner exhibits, and so forth. Without a doubt, these occasions are sine qua non to all lawful guide centers and should be done broadly; yet an alternate standpoint from them can guarantee worthier advantages.

The Center expects to give free legitimate guidance to defenseless people and individuals from the more fragile segments of society and to bring out the social government assistance exercises by sharpening individuals about their lawful privileges and obligations. It leads a few Lawful Proficiency Camps to achieve legitimate mindfulness by connecting really with the underestimated segments of the general public. It expects to give useful information on regulation to understudies by giving them chances to know the ground’s real factors. Various panels of the understudies have been framed to investigate various regions where a lawful guide is required.

Objectives of legal aid clinic

• Advance lawful schooling and examination.
• Paralegal administrations by the workforce and the understudies.
• Community for viable expert preparation for understudies of regulation.
• Lawful administrations to the socially and the financially in reverse areas of the general public who experience issues getting to the legal framework.
• Spread mindfulness to the general public about contemporary lawful issues and advancements.
• Give understudies vital drafting and investigating abilities.

Conclusion

The legitimate calling is supposed to assume a powerful part in the organization of equity. Graduate schools being the selecting justification for the legitimate calling, there is a need to infuse new soul into the substance of lawful training to make attorneys and legitimate experts socially significant and expertly capable to tie down the established command of admittance to equity.

References

1. [Online] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294871717_4_Legal_Education_in_Kerala-Problems_and_Perspectives2009_1_Kerala_Law_Times_43.
2. [Online] https://www.las.nluo.ac.in/post/legal-aid-clinics-in-law-schools.

This article is written by Cheshta Bhardwaj, from Delhi Metropolitan Education (GGSIPU).