Union slams T.N. govt. decision to move Supreme Court on career advancement scheme for guest lecturers
In an official release, AUT general secretary K. Raja said: 'On one hand, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education issued a letter on June 9, instructing all Regional Joint Directors to urgently submit updated CAS-related data of eligible teachers by June 10. This communication clearly signalled the Government's affirmative intention to proceed with the long-overdue CAS promotions with monetary benefits, offering hope and justice to thousands of eligible teachers in aided colleges.
'Surprisingly, in a completely contradictory move, a communication dated June 16 addressed to A. Muraliraj, assistant professor of Mathematics, Urumu Dhanalakshmi College, Tiruchi, reveals that the government has chosen to challenge a favourable High Court judgment in the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) with a motive to deny CAS monetary benefits due to the teachers. This action directly undermines the rightful claims of teachers, seeking career progression and represents a serious breach of trust.'
The association demanded immediate withdrawal of the SLP and urged the authorities to honour the High Court verdict.
'The Career Advancement Scheme is a statutory right, not a privilege. Any attempt to delay or deny this right adversely affects the morale, dignity, and academic integrity of the teaching community,' the release said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Judiciary should not override executive's decision to deport a foreign national: Home Ministry
The Union Home Ministry's (MHA) appeal against a Jammu and Kashmir High Court order to repatriate a 62-year-old housewife who was deported to Pakistan post Pahalgam terror attack said the 'judiciary should not override' the executive's decision to deport a foreign national. It said the High Court order was constitutionally impermissible and unsustainable, as it directed the enforcement of a judicial writ beyond the sovereign territory of India to Pakistan, where she was deported and was thus ultra vires. The Ministry also said that the court's direction was 'legally unenforceable and diplomatically untenable.' 'There exists no extradition treaty, legal instrument, or international obligation binding Pakistan to return her to India. The Indian government cannot, under existing international law, compel a sovereign nation to surrender a non-citizen,' the MHA said. The Home Ministry said 'courts must preserve the institutional boundaries necessary for effective governance' and the order, if allowed to stand, would establish a dangerous precedent. Staying for 38 years The MHA filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before a Division Bench of the High Court against a June 6 order by judge Rahul Bharti who directed the Union Home Secretary to bring back the petitioner Rakshanda Rashid in 10 days. Married to an Indian, Ms. Rashid had been staying in Jammu for 38 years on a Long-Term Visa (LTV), which was extended annually even as her citizenship application is pending with the MHA since 1996. On April 29, at the time of deportation, the LTV did not exist, the MHA said. Ms. Rashid had said in her petition that she applied for LTV renewal in January and the application was never rejected. After the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, where 26 people were killed, the MHA cancelled the visas of all Pakistani citizens and asked them to leave the country by April 29. The order exempted those with LTVs or Pakistani women married to Indian citizens. The Ministry said that while passing the order, the single judge 'failed to appreciate the circumstances and the national security considerations and the reasonable apprehension posed by the Pakistani nationals staying in India on account of war-like situation between India and Pakistan.' It added that the order is 'contrary to the principles of judicial restraint in the matters concerning national security and international relations, particularly in dealing with the national of a hostile country.' It said the order was 'based on assumption that marriage to an Indian citizen entitles her to claim a right to reside in India or to have her deportation reopen.' 'Subject to control' 'It is well settled law that a foreign national does not acquire Indian nationality or legal residency rights solely by virtue of marriage. A foreigner does not possess a fundamental right to reside in India and their entry and stay are subject to regulatory control of the state under Foreigners Act, 1946. Because it is a trite law that a foreign national do not enjoy rights guaranteed under Article 19. The only fundamental right available to a foreigner is under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which does not confer any right to remain in India once a visa expires or is revoked,' the MHA said. The Ministry said the order would set a dangerous precedent and 'may be cited by foreign nationals to invoke Article 226 for personal repatriation' and the outcome 'threatens the integrity of constitutional separation and immigration enforcement alike.' The judiciary, by ordering the repatriation of a foreign national from another sovereign country, had encroached on into the domain of the Union Executive, whose functions under Article 73 include decisions regarding foreign relations, immigration policy, and national security, the Home Ministry said.
Scroll.in
8 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Rush Hour: Bengaluru ACP's suspension over stampede quashed, Telangana blast toll rises to 37 & more
We're building a brand-new studio to bring you bold ground reports, sharp interviews, hard-hitting podcasts, explainers and more. Support Scroll's studio fund today. The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed a Karnataka government order suspending Bengaluru's Additional Commissioner of Police Vikash Kumar Vikash following the stampede outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium on June 4. The suspension order had been passed without sufficient grounds, it said. It appeared that Royal Challengers Bengaluru was 'responsible for the gathering' outside the stadium after it 'suddenly posted' about the event without seeking permission from the police, the tribunal said. Sufficient time should be given to the police to make arrangements for such large crowds, it added. The stampede took place at one of the gates of the stadium where fans had gathered to celebrate the Royal Challengers Bengaluru's victory in the Indian Premier League. Eleven persons were killed and more than 50 were injured in the incident. Read on. The Calcutta High Court asked the West Bengal government why candidates accused of wrongdoing in an alleged cash-for-jobs teacher recruitment scam were being allowed to apply again. The state's school education department had published a gazette notification on May 30 regarding the fresh appointment of assistant teachers in upper primary, secondary and higher secondary classes in government-run and government-aided schools. The court asked why there was 'no express bar to debar the tainted candidates from applying' in the notification. In April, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's 2024 order terminating the appointment of about 25,000 teachers and non-teaching staff by West Bengal's School Service Commission after observing that the recruitment process was 'vitiated by manipulation and fraud'. Read on. Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, the Bharatiya Janata Party's former Tamil Nadu chief K Annamalai and organisers of an event held in Madurai in June were booked for allegedly inciting communal hostility and violating Madras High Court restrictions. A complaint alleged that speeches and resolutions at the Lord Murugan Devotees Conference incited communal discord and violated conditions set by the High Court. The court had permitted the gathering while imposing limitations on political and religious commentary. Read on. The toll from a fire at a chemical factory blast near Hyderabad increased to 37. The explosion on Monday at Sigachi Industries' drying unit the Pashamylaram industrial area, triggered the fire, causing a portion of the building to collapse and trapping workers under the debris. Chief Minister Revanth Reddy announced a compensation of Rs 1 crore for the families of the workers who died and Rs 10 lakh for those injured. A five-member committee has been appointed to review the accident.
United News of India
9 hours ago
- United News of India
HC dismiss PIL challenging move to convert Mayor bungalow into Thackeray memorial
Mumbai, July 1 (UNI) The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the Maharashtra government's decision of 2017 to convert an old Mumbai mayor bungalow at Shivaji Park in Dadar area of central Mumbai into a memorial for late Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray. The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Sandeep V Marne dismissed the petition during the hearing of the PIL filed by social activist Bhagwanji Riyani, challenging the decision, claiming that the proposed construction violated the Environmental Protection Act and the Coastal Zone Regulation notification. The petitioners also claimed that since the bungalow, built in 1928, is a heritage structure, it cannot be converted into a memorial. The PIL before the court also challenged the state government's decision to allocate ₹100 crore as a budget for setting up the memorial. The PIL also assailed an amendment to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act by which BMC was allowed to leave an immovable property of the corporation to any person at a nominal rate of ₹1 per annum. The petition said that the entire machinery was being moved for a private individual when the amount could be used for other important things. The Maharashtra government in its response said it was the state's discretion to allot land and money for the memorial. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC) also defended the construction and told the High Court that all requisite permissions were obtained and procedures followed before allotting land for the memorial. In its affidavit filed before the High Court, the BMC stated that due process of law had been followed before allotting land for the memorial in Mumbai at a nominal rate. The bench passed the order after hearing both petitioner and respondents at length. UNI AAA PRS
