Tag: #news

-Report by Zainab Khan

A bench consisting of SC judges of Justice U.U.Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia hearing a civil appeal in the case of the University of Kerala and ors. Etc. Vs Merlin J.N and anr.etc.etc held that regulations passed by UGC’s have a retrospective effect on the appointment of university Lecturers, which gives them exemption from the compulsory qualification of NET.

FACT

Appellant had qualified M.Phil in the year 2000 and completed his Ph.D. in 2006. He was appointed as a lecturer of sociology at the University of Kerala on 4.08.2012. The university provides him exemption from compulsory NET qualification while selecting him. The respondent who was ranked 2 nd in the selection process in the same category, filed a writ petition before the Kerala High court alleging that the appellant’s appointment was not in accordance with UGC, REGULATION 2009.

The HC court ruled on 1.02.2017 that the appellant was not qualified to hold the post of Lecturer, the court relied on the judgments of Suseela Vs. University Grants Commission and Dr. D Radhakrishnan Pillai Vs. The Travancore Devaswom Board.

APPELLANT CONTENTION

The counsel for the appellant argues that his appointment was made as per the law, as university has adopted the UGC regulations, 2009 on 23.11.2013 which is after the appointment of the appellant. The counsel further argues that the resolution passed by UGC in its 471 meeting on 12.08.2010 that Ph.D regulation 2004 and UGC regulation
2009 were of prospective nature.Hence appellant’s appointment should be declared as valid.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION

Counsel for respondent argues that respondent is more capable than appellant as she had qualified for her NET exam in 1998 and done Ph.D. later and since then she is working in Kerala university as a teacher. The counsel further argues that the UGC resolution on 12.08.2010 is contrary to UGC regulation 2010 and the central Government also disagrees with this resolution.

Counsel argues that the appellant should not take benefit of ph.d regulation 2009 and UGC regulation 2016 , as these have prospective effect and he has completed his ph.d before both regulations.

Key highlights of UGC amendments –

• UGC regulation 2000 states NET as an essential condition for appointment as a lecturer in any university. But it exempted candidates who acquired M.Phil or submitted a Ph.D. by 31.12.1993 from NET.
• UGC regulation amendment 2002 gives exemption to candidates from NET who acquired their M.Phil by 31.03.1993 or submitted Ph.D. by 31.12.2002.
• UGC regulation amendment 2009, it rules the minimum condition for appointment of the lecturer as NET but exempted those who acquired their Ph.D. in accordance with Ph.D. regulation 2009.
• UGC regulation amendment 2016, provides candidates having a Ph.D. degree before 11.07.2009 also considered to be appointed as lecturers.

JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble court has observed how UGC is protecting the candidate and learned teachers by giving them exemption from compulsory NET as much possible as it can.

The court ruled that UGC regulation 2016 is retrospective in nature. The court relied on the judgment of Rafiquennessa v. Lal Bahadur Chetri (dead) through his representative and ors.

The Hon’ble court quashed the earlier orders of the Kerala High court and upheld the appellant’s appointment as valid as per UGC regulation 2016.

-Report by Anjana C

It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Subhash Chander Sehgal & Ors. the writ petition stands dismissed, and the current appeal will be pursued.

Facts of the Case: 

• Unsatisfied with the decision of the Delhi High Court, the petitioner has appealed. 
• The possession of the land was taken by the authority in 1987and was utilized as a park by the East Delhi Municipal Corporation. 

In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association, the following was said that has been applied to this case: 

• According to Section 24(1)(a), there is no lapse in proceedings if there is an award on the date of commencement of the 2013 Act. 
• If the award has been made within 5 years (excluding the period of an interim order of the Court), the proceedings will be according to the 2013 Act under Section 24(1)(b) under the 1894 Act, regarding it as not repealed. 
• If the possession of land has been taken over and compensation has not been paid, there is no lapse. 
• If compensation is not paid and possession has not been taken, there is no lapse. 
• If the compensation has not been deposited in court, all beneficiaries to the landholding will be entitled, as on the date of notification, to compensation under Section 4 of the 2013 Act.  
• Non-deposit does not result in a lapse of land acquisition proceedings. 
• If compensation has been tendered under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, he cannot state that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) as a result of non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in Court. 
• The obligation to pay is complete when the amount due is tendered in accordance with Section 31(1). 
• Landowners refusing to accept compensation/ who seek reference for a higher compensation are not in the position to claim lapse under Section 24(2) under the 2013 Act. 
• The method of acquiring land under the 1894 Act under Section 24(2) is by making an inquest report/ memorandum. 
• Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act. It does not reopen cases/ proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of the mode of possession.

Judgment of the case: 

If there is no lapse in acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the land remains in the possession of the appellant. There will be no question of payment of compensation to the petitioners. It was said that the writ petitioners were entitled to compensation according to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. All of the above taken into consideration, the Court declared the High Court’s order to be quashed and set aside. The writ petition filed before the High Court was dismissed. 

The present appeal was allowed, and no order was given regarding costs incurred by the parties.

Noting that the Police Officer named forty-five men and women withinside the stated F.I.R., who had been unknown to him, the Allahabad High Court ultimate week granted Anticipatory Bail to a person accused of Assaulting Police Officials who had been on election responsibility at some point of the Panchayat Polls in Uttar Pradesh.

The Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh granted Bail to at least one Raj Kumar looking at that custodial interrogation turned into now no longer important withinside the on the spontaneous case.

The on the spontaneous anticipatory bail utility has been filed on behalf of the applicant Raj Kumar named in an in F.I.R. below Sections 147, 148, 149, 395, 397, 332, 353, 504, 506, 427, 336, 307, 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment and Sections 131, 132(3), 135A of Representation of People Act.

The Counsel said that it additionally got here into the know-how of the applicant (from backward caste) that his call had additionally been referred to withinside the F.I.R. on the behest of the rivals (from upward class), who had been below the effect that the applicant did now no longer forged his vote of their favor.

On the opposite hand, the A.G.A. antagonistic to the prayer of the applicant and submitted that withinside the stated incident, some of the villagers along with the applicant had assaulted the police employees and withinside the stated incident 4 police employees obtained injuries, therefore, the applicant isn’t entitled to bail.

However, looking at that it turned into glaring that the police officer named forty-five men and women withinside the stated F.I.R., which had been unknown to him, the Court, as a period in-between measure, he turned into granted anticipatory bail.

Advocate Daya Shankar Yadav seemed for the Applicant with inside the matter.

Report by – Manaswa Sharma