Institutional round applications for engg, mgmt via CET cell too
To bring in more transparency in admissions to institutional quota seats across technical courses, including diploma, undergraduate and postgraduate, the state govt has decided to step up precautionary measures.
For instance, the govt has now removed the ambiguity in the definition of 'NRI', paving the way for only genuine candidates to secure seats under the quota. Additionally, the state's Fees Regulatory Authority (FRA) also fixed fees for institutional quota seats for the first time in technical colleges—private, unaided colleges can now charge up to five times the fees for merit seats from NRI students and three times from students taking admission in management seats.
The govt issued a notification bringing in amendments in the Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Act, 2015 on Friday. One of the provisions in the notification stated, "In case a candidate is unable to submit the application directly to the concerned institute for any reason, the candidate shall have the opportunity to apply through the website of the CET cell till the date of allotment of final admission round.
" These applications will be forwarded to the respective institutions after the allotment process of round four and will be considered for merit, it mentioned.
Vinod Mohitkar, director, directorate of technical education, said the govt is not overstepping on the rights of management to conduct the institutional round. "We receive some complaints from students about certain institutions refusing applications for the institutional round.
We are, therefore, only offering students an additional platform to apply. These applications will be compiled and sent to respective institutions and they will include these names, while preparing their merit list," said the director.
Some of the admission rules were also modified in the notification, but were announced before.
The state's cabinet, in a meeting this week, also announced aspirants seeking admission under the NRI quota for any courses will have to submit a certificate from respective consulate offices or documents mentioned in Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. A department official said even local students claimed admissions under NRI quota by submitting affidavits. Higher and technical education minister Chandrakant Patil had announced revision in admission process for more transparency.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Telephone tapping constitutes a violation of right to privacy: Madras HC
The Madras High Court on Wednesday held that telephone tapping constitutes a violation of the right to privacy unless justified by a procedure established by law. Justice N Anand Venkatesh also observed that the right to privacy is now an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judge said section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act authorises interception of telephones on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interests of public safety. Both these contingencies were not secretive conditions or situations. Either of the situations would be apparent to a reasonable person. As laid down in paragraph 28 of the decision of the Apex court in People's Union for Civil Liberties, it was only when the above two situations exist that the authority may pass an order directing interception of messages after recording its satisfaction that it was necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, he added. Allowing a petition filed by P Kishore, Managing Director of Everonn Education Limited, the judge quashed an order of the union government, which authorised tapping of the mobile phone of the petitioner, in connection with a case relating to bribery and corruption, probed by the CBI, involving an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The judge said in the instant case, the impugned order dated August 12, 2011 does not fall either within the rubric of "public emergency" or "in the interests of public safety" as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties. The facts disclose that it was a covert operation/secretive situation for detection of crime, which would not be apparent to any reasonable person. As the law presently stands, a situation of this nature does not fall within the four corners of Section 5(2) of the Act as expounded by the Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties, which has been approved by the Constitution Bench of the SC in K S Puttaswamy case, the judge added. The judge said the authorities have also contravened Rule 419-A(17) of the Telegraph Rules by failing to place the intercepted material before the Review Committee within the stipulated time to examine as to whether the interception was made in compliance with Section 5(2) of the Act. As a consequence, the impugned order must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction. Besides violating Article 21, it was also ultra vires Section 5(2) of the Act besides being in violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 419-A of the Rules, the judge added. The judge said it follows that the intercepted conversations collected pursuant to the impugned order in violation of Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 419-A(17) of the Rules shall not be used for any purposes whatsoever. The judge said it was, however, made clear that the above direction shall have no bearing on the other material that has been collected by the CBI subsequent to and independent of the intercepted call records, which shall be considered by the trial court on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Why Bihar is witnessing fresh protests against amended Waqf Act
Last Sunday, thousands of people gathered at Patna's Gandhi Maidan to protest against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The Waqf Act has been challenged in court, and the Supreme Court in May, after hearing multiple petitions, reserved its decision on the law. So why are protests in Bihar heating up now? We explain. The Patna rally The rally in Patna on June 29 was organised by Imarat-e-Shariah, one of the largest socio-education-religious body of Muslims in India. Imrat-e-Shariah chief Faisal Rahmani, who heads the organisation's operations in Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, and West Bengal, said that though the amendments to the 1995 Waqf law have been passed in Parliament, he does not believe all is lost yet. 'If the Centre can take back the three farm laws because of overwhelming protest from farmers, the same thing can happen with the Waqf amendments. The changes in the new Act are facing heavy resistance in several states,' Rahmani said. The Imarat-e-Shariah says that as the Centre dismissed 300-plus representations about the amendments, it has now decided to summarily reject the amended Act, demanding reinstatement of the Waqf Act, 1995. Rahmani pointed out that is is difficult to furnish documents proving Waqf ownership of old properties, and asked if the Centre would demand similar paperwork for the places of worship of other religions. He called the amendnents an 'attack on brotherhood and citizenry.' Why has the Muslim body chosen Bihar as the main ground for protest? Bihar has over 17 per cent Muslim population, usually believed to be the constituency of the RJD and the Congress. The state goes to polls in a few months, and the Opposition parties are trying to capitalise on the anti-Waqf Act sentiments. Plus, the Imarat-e-Shariah has traditionally had a strong presence in Bihar from the time of its former chief the late Wali Rahmani, who founded the popular coaching programme Rahmani30 in 2008. The organisation has been getting direct and indirect support from non-NDA parties, especially from the RJD. Leader of Opposition Tejashwi Yadav had been the main speaker at the Gandhi Maidan rally, which was very well-attended. What next? Now that it has held a successful rally in Bihar, the Imarat-e-Shariah plans to revisit its district units in Bihar, West Bengal, Jharkhand, and Odisha to further intensify the protests at ground levels. It also plans to interact with like-minded bodies from UP, Maharashtra and other states to consider a rally at a bigger level, preferably in New Delhi. In the legal challenges to the amendments, some key issues were flagged. The first was the doing away of the concept of 'Waqf by use', which means that land used for Muslim religious or charitable purposes for a long time can be deemed to be a Waqf even if it is not registered as such. The inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards; the District Collector getting powers to decide that a Waqf property is government property; and allowing the applicability of the Limitation Act with respect to Waqf properties — which would prevent the Waqf board from making legal claims, like opposing encroachment, about a property after a certain period had elapsed — are among the other changes being opposed. In April, the Centre assured the Centre that it would pause the doing away of the 'Waqf by use' provision and inclusion of non-Muslims on Waqf boards. Santosh Singh is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express since June 2008. He covers Bihar with main focus on politics, society and governance. Investigative and explanatory stories are also his forte. Singh has 25 years of experience in print journalism covering Bihar, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka. ... Read More
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
MP High Court remands property dispute involving heirs of ex-Bhopal Nawab, including Saif Ali Khan, back to trial court after 25 years
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on June 30 set aside a trial court order from over 25 years ago that had deemed Saif Ali Khan, his sisters and mother as the successors to the properties in appeals by heirs of the elder brother of the erstwhile Nawab of Bhopal. The heirs of erstwhile Nawab Hamidullah Khan of Bhopal, who passed away in 1960, as well as those of his elder brother, were seeking partition and succession of the private properties as per Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act, 1937, as was in force at the time of the then Nawab's death, and moved trial court in this regard in 1999. Begum Suraiya Rashid, heir of Obaidullah Khan, the elder brother of the erstwhile Nawab of Bhopal Hamidullah Khan, and Qamar Taj Rabia Sultan, the Nawab's heir, represented by Advocate Aadil Boparia, filed appeals challenging a trial court order in 2000. The court decreed two personal properties in favour of the heirs of Sajida Sultan, the second daughter of Nawab Hamidullah, and Saif's paternal grandmother. Sajida was declared Nawab following Hamidullah's death, and she died in 1995. The decision of the trial court had come in partition suits moved by the heirs of the Nawab's family in 1999. After 25 years of the appeals being heard before the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh HC, Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, in an order on June 30, allowed them. The bench, however, remanded all the parties back to the trial court, and granted the liberty to move an appropriate application before the trial court. The appellant heirs contended that the trial court erroneously assumed that the private properties of the Nawab are part of the throne and will thus automatically pass on to the successor to the throne. They argued that the properties have nothing to do with succession, and the partition of the properties will be governed by the personal law of succession. Concurring with the appellants' submissions, the Madhya Pradesh High Court said, '…The matters need to be remanded back to the trial Court for deciding it afresh because these are the suits for partition. And if ultimately, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that suits have to be allowed, then the share of the parties can be determined only by the trial Court while passing the preliminary decree, and that can be further finalised by the trial Court itself after carrying out the necessary formalities of partition.' 'Thus, in my opinion, the impugned judgment and decree deserve to be and are hereby set aside….It is made clear that since the suits were initially filed in the year 1999, therefore, the trial Court shall make all possible efforts to conclude and decide it expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year,' added the court.
