Supreme Court quashes over 1000 assistant professor appointments in 2 Punjab universities
NEW DELHI: In a major setback to over 1,000 assistant professors appointed in 2021 in Panjab University and Guru Nanak Dev University, the Supreme Court on Monday quashed their recruitment, observing that it was done in violation of UGC regulations.
Recruitment was done for 1,091 posts of assistant professor and 67 posts of librarian. The court said it is a settled principle that when the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it should be done in that manner alone.
"In the present case, there are multiple deficiencies. Giving away of a rigorous criteria laid down in UGC regulations with a single, multiple-choice question based written test, and the complete elimination of the viva-voce, all establish the arbitrary nature of the exercise which cannot pass the test of reasonableness laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution," a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said.
"Hence, the single judge (of Punjab and Haryana HC) had rightly struck down the entire selection process, and the division bench of HC erred in interfering with that conclusion," it said. SC accepted the plea of senior advocates Raju Ramchandran and Nidhesh Gupta who alleged that the recruitment process was illegal and needed to be set aside.
The court noted that the recruitment process was changed without any reason and it was decided by govt that selection would be done only on the basis of a written exam. "State is entitled to change its policy, yet a sudden change without valid reasons will always be seen with suspicion. Even in cases where there is no statutory prescription of any particular way of doing a thing, the executive must observe the long-standing practice," it said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
34 minutes ago
- News18
Privacy Vs Proof: Supreme Court Verdict On Secret Recordings Reshapes Marital Disputes
Last Updated: While some in the legal fraternity acknowledged the court's attempts to build safeguards, others stressed that it cuts deep into the sanctity of marriage In a judgment that might make couples think twice before whispering secrets at home, the Supreme Court has ruled that secret recordings between spouses can be used as evidence in matrimonial disputes. The landmark verdict has sent ripples through legal and social circles, with some hailing it as a win for justice and others warning it could turn marriages into surveillance zones. Advocate Amish Aggarwala, a specialist in law relating to marital disputes, welcomed the decision, saying it clarifies murky interpretations of privacy rights and spousal privilege. 'Right to privacy is protection against the State, not against individuals," he asserted, emphasising that Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act—often used to withhold spousal testimony—is merely an exception, not a blanket shield. Adding her voice to the chorus of support, advocate Tarini K Nayak called the decision 'valid and timely". She argued that the judgment does not violate individual privacy since the use of recordings is confined to legal proceedings and subject to judicial scrutiny. 'Privacy must be balanced with accountability. The court has ensured that the interests of justice are prioritised without turning the bedroom into a courtroom by default," Nayak said. But not everyone is convinced that this legal precedent is marital bliss. Advocate-on-Record Tanya Srivastava warned that it opens a Pandora's box in already delicate matrimonial cases. 'It's a dangerous precedent. I've seen clients provoke their partners just to capture them at their worst. You can't always tell what's real and what's weaponised in such recordings," she cautioned. On the other hand, Advocate-on-Record Bhaskar Aditya believes the ruling is in sync with the times, citing the rise in failed marriages and marital discord. 'When relationships break down, the right to a fair trial shouldn't," he said, calling the ruling consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty—including a fair trial. As India grapples with evolving definitions of privacy, marriage, and justice, this ruling raises a crucial—and quirky—question: In the age of smartphones and secret mics, is love still blind… or just being quietly recorded? view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Delimitation not part of election process, its administrative action: Goa court
The Goa bench of the Bombay High Court recently dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 9(2) of the City of Panaji Corporation Act, which authorises the Director of Municipal Administration, and not the State Election Commission, to delimit municipal court held that the power of delimitation is administrative in nature and not part of the election process, concluding that 'no case is made out' to strike down Section 9 (2).advertisementThe petitioner, Menino Da Cruz is a two-time elected corporator from Ward 19 of the Corporation of the City of Panaji. His lawyer Rohit Bras De Sa argued that the 2005 amendment violated Articles 243-K (Panchayat elections and 243-ZA (Municipalities elections) of the Constitution and Section 11 (outlines the commission's role in the corporation's elections) of the Act. The advocate submitted that vesting delimitation powers in the Director undermined the independence of elections, as delimitation affects fair representation and must be carried out under the supervision of the Election also flagged the lack of statutory guidelines and alleged that the process had been misused by delegating powers to revenue officers like the State of Goa, represented by Advocate General Devidas Pangam, countered that delimitation is not part of the "conduct of elections" as envisaged under Article 243-ZA. Pangan argued that administrative tasks such as demarcating wards can legally be performed by government with the advocate general's submissions, the bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta observed, 'according to us, demarcation of wards into Cities for the purpose of election is not a part of conduct of 'election' and, therefore, in our view, do not fall within the scope of the functions exclusively assigned to the State Election Commission'The bench held that merely because a provision is 'susceptible to misuse' cannot be a ground to declare it unconstitutional. "It is settled position of law that a validity of a statute or a provision cannot be struck down only on a ground of its susceptible misuse and only it would result into harsh situations in its application," added the bench.- Ends
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
OBC Advisory Council meeting begins on July 15, boost for CM Siddaramaiah's morale
BENGALURU: Amid speculation over leadership change, the AICC Backward Classes Advisory Council meeting which Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah is hosting here on Tuesday and Wednesday, is likely to boost his image as the OBC face of the party at the national level. Interestingly, Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, apparently to identify himself with OBCs, had recently said that Vokkaligas and Lingayats are included in the OBC list at the Centre. The meeting will begin at the KPCC headquarters on Tuesday, and resume at a private hotel on the second day. It will discuss the caste census in the light of the Centre announcing that the national census would include caste, as LoP in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi has been vociferous about the caste census. A discussion on Article 164(1) of the Constitution, with reference to Jharkhand, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, is also part of the agenda. The meeting being held under his leadership is likely to boost Siddaramaiah's morale. A host of OBC leaders from across the country, Congress Working Committee (CWC) members and Pradesh Congress Committee presidents are expected to take part as special invitees. They include Tamradhwaj Sahu, Jagdish Thakore, Manickam Tagore, Girish Chodankar, Manikrao Thakre, Yashomati Thakur, Keshav Mahto Kamlesh, Devendra Yadav, Gaurav Gogoi, Jitu Patwari, Capt Ajay Singh Yadav and Madhu Gaud Yashki, among others. A host of OBC leaders from across the country, including former chief ministers Ashok Gehlot, Bhupesh Baghel, V Narayansamy and Dr M Veerappa Moily, senior leaders BK Hariprasad, Sachin Pilot and others are expected to take part. AICC OBC cell chief Dr Anil JaiHind is the convener of the Advisory Council and Jitendra Baghel is the secretary. The other members of the council, including Kamleshwar Patel, Gurdeep Singh Sappal, Srikant Jena, Ajay Kumar Lallu, Mahesh Kumar Goud, Amit Chavda, Arun Yadav, Ponnam Prabhakar, V Hanumantha Rao, S Jothimani, Adoor Prakash, Vijay Namdevrao Wadettiwar, Dhanendra Sahu, Subhashini Yadav and Hina Kaware, are also expected to participate.
