Latest news with #PublicInterestLitigation
Indian Express
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Amid acute teacher shortage in Jharkhand, many eligible aspirants say left out of recruitment process despite court directions
Even after the Jharkhand High Court's directive and a clear timeline to begin the recruitment of 6,000 upper primary school teachers, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) has invited only around 2,700 candidates for document verification. The process was meant to address the acute shortage of teachers across the state, but has triggered fresh conflict. Over 500 candidates, many of whom claim to have met the eligibility criteria, have been disqualified without a clear explanation. All of them belong to the Science category, whose document verification began in the first week of June, as per the High Court's instructions. One of the affected candidates, Yogendra Vishwakarma, from a Backward Class I community, told The Indian Express that he scored 58 percent, well above the required 34 percent for his category, but was still not invited for document verification. The same goes for Chandan Kumar, who secured 57 percent against the 40 percent required for the general category. Meanwhile, Yamuna Kumar Das, from a Scheduled Caste community, said he obtained 58.4 percent, compared to the 32 percent cutoff for SCs and STs candidates. 'We waited for years for this recruitment. Now, despite qualifying, we're being pushed out without reason. We will fight this legally,' said Vishwakarma. As per the High Court order, a total of 15,001 upper primary teachers are to be appointed, 5,000 each for Science, Arts and Language. The current issue pertains only to the Science category, where the verification process was initiated first. When contacted, JSSC member Pratap Singh acknowledged that fewer candidates were invited for verification in the science stream. 'The number of qualifying candidates in science was lower than the total number of posts available. Around 2,700 candidates were called, and the process has been completed for Science. However, we are open to reviewing cases,' he said. He added that the final merit list will clarify many concerns and if any genuinely qualified candidate has been left out, they will consider calling them for document verification in a second list. Singh also clarified that while the commission is trying to adhere to the Court's timeline, it may overshoot the deadline by up to two months due to the scale and complexity of the recruitment process. 'Currently, verification is underway for the social science category. Language and Arts subjects will be taken up afterward,' he said. This development comes after the High Court, in April, ordered the JSSC to expedite the recruitment of 26,000 school teachers, directing it to complete the appointment of upper primary teachers by the first week of July and primary teachers by mid-September. Earlier, during the April hearing, Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao had warned against delays, appointing the Attorney General to oversee the process. The Court's intervention came after a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by economist and activist Dr. Jean Drèze and co-petitioner Paran Amitava, who highlighted Jharkhand's chronic teacher shortage and under-enforcement of the Right to Education Act, 2009. The Court that time also had asked the JSSC to submit a compliance report by June 30. More than 8,000 schools in Jharkhand continue to be run by a single teacher, despite the RTE mandate that each school must have at least two teachers and a pupil-teacher ratio not exceeding 30:1. Shubham Tigga hails from Chhattisgarh and studied journalism at the Asian College of Journalism. He previously reported in Chhattisgarh on Indigenous issues and is deeply interested in covering socio-political, human rights, and environmental issues in mainland and NE India. Presently based in Pune, he reports on civil aviation, other transport sectors, urban mobility, the gig economy, commercial matters, and workers' unions. You can reach out to him on LinkedIn ... Read More
Hans India
a day ago
- Politics
- Hans India
High Court orders removal of living politicians' names from government properties
Davanagere: In a landmark direction upholding public interest, the Karnataka High Court has barred the naming of government buildings, roads, parks and other public properties after living politicians. The Court has given the Davangere district administration four weeks to remove such names from all government assets in the district. The order came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by advocate Raghavendra from Davangere, who questioned the trend of naming public assets after sitting politicians. The petition cited several examples, including the naming of Davangere Municipal Corporation's hall, the Zilla Panchayat hall, the renovated old bus stand, parks and localities after current public representatives like Shamanur Shivashankarappa, Minister S.S. Mallikarjun and S.A. Ravindranath. The petitioner argued that only deceased freedom fighters or eminent personalities should be honoured in this manner, not living politicians. Agreeing with the plea, the High Court cited its earlier 2012 order which prohibits naming government properties after livingpersons. The court directed the competent authorities including the Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Secretary to ensure compliance within four weeks. Reacting to the order, BJP MLA B.P. Harish welcomed the decision, pointing out that even the Supreme Court had made a similar observation 13 years ago. 'Some leaders think people won't remember them after their death, so they name public properties after themselves while alive. Such names must be removed,' he said. Congress MLA Shivaganga Basavaraj echoed similar sentiments, stating, 'No government building or project should bear the names of serving politicians. These buildings are constructed with taxpayers' money, not from our personal wealth. The practice is fundamentally wrong and stronger orders must be issued to prevent this.' The court's firm direction has brought renewed focus on the need for depoliticising public spaces and respecting taxpayers' contribution to public infrastructure.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
'The bar council has no funds' HC questions ₹5,000 stipend for junior lawyers
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday questioned the legal entitlement of young lawyers, who have practised for less than three years, to receive a monthly stipend of ₹ 5,000. Examining the legal sustainability of the cause, the court said the Bar Council has no funds to provide such financial assistance. (Shutterstock) The division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne on Wednesday was hearing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by 12 young lawyers in 2022. The petition contended that the new lawyers were affected by COVID-19 and urgently required financial assistance. It stated the Bar Council must financially support young lawyers who have not completed three years of practice and have an annual income of less than ₹ 1 lakh. Every lawyer in Maharashtra and Goa is registered under the Bar Council of India and the Maharashtra and Goa Bar Council. They have paid ₹ 15,000 to the council towards the welfare fund for lawyers, so it becomes the responsibility of these councils to look into the welfare of the lawyers, said the petition. The petition, filed through advocate Asim Sarode, cited a survey conducted by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. According to the study, more than 79% of surveyed lawyers across seven high courts, with less than two years of legal practice at the Bar, earn less than ₹ 10,000 a month. The petition also referred to news reports showing several lawyers died by suicide because of the prevailing economic crisis. 'Being able to earn a livelihood is part of the right to live with dignity,' they said, adding that the high courts in Telangana, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Puducherry have already taken the initiative to provide relevant financial assistance to their young lawyers. The petitioners relied on an order passed by the Kerala High Court which granted young lawyers a monthly stipend of ₹ 5,000. The Bar Council of Delhi High Court also provided financial assistance to daily earning lawyers during the complete lockdown due to the COVID-19 outbreak, said the petition. The state government and the Bar Council are legally obligated to constitute and contribute to the Advocate's Welfare Fund, said the petition. 'It seems that the state government of Maharashtra has not taken any steps to economically support the new lawyers and to give economic aid to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa,' it added. On March 24, 2020, the Bar Council of India (BCI) appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a minimum monthly subsistence of ₹ 20,000 to lawyers who are not financially well-off so that they can support their families. BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, in his letter to the PM and the CMs of all states, requested a provision that provides allowance from the Centre and state government funds, either directly or through Advocate Welfare Funds of the state bar councils. However, no economic support has been provided by the Central Government. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, on the other hand, submitted that implementing this policy would cost them approximately ₹ 155 crore annually. The bench observed that the petition lacks elements to entertain the cause. 'What is the statutory right? On a personal level, we support you. But principally, who will give this? The Bar Council has no funds. Will you give any funds? How is society in general concerned with the stipend to young lawyers?' it said. The bench stated that ₹ 15,000 is inadequate to sustain in Mumbai. 'We believe that in cities like Mumbai, ₹ 45,000 should be paid. But where will the funds come from?' The court directed the parties to clarify the existence of a statutory right mandating stipends for young lawyers and scheduled to hear the case after two weeks.
India Today
4 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
Where will money come from: Court on plea for Rs 5,000 stipend for junior lawyers
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday questioned the maintainability of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a monthly stipend of Rs 5,000 for junior lawyers who have not completed three years of practice, observing that the plea lacked genuine public interest."It cannot be a public interest. 'All law candidates' does not mean the public at large. How is society in general concerned in giving stipend to you?" remarked a bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne during the court further raised practical and financial concerns about the proposal, asking, "Where will the money come from? Why Rs 5,000? You should get Rs 25,000. In Mumbai, one should get Rs 45,000. But who will give? Have you thought of it? What is the statutory duty under which the Bar Council is obliged to give the stipend? How do we give it, even if we think you should get it?" Advocate Uday Warunjikar, appearing for the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, informed the court that while some Bar Councils in other states had received support from their respective state governments, the Maharashtra government had declined a request for assistance in creating a financial bench noted that the Bar Council had estimated a requirement of Rs 1.55 crore to fund such a stipend scheme but lacked the necessary resources. "Funds are required and that is a vital aspect," the bench court also took note of the fact that the petition had been filed in 2021 by lawyers who were then within the three-year threshold but had since crossed that mark. Addressing the petitioners' counsel, the bench said, "You would have completed three years of work experience yourselves by now. You appoint three juniors and now you should pay Rs 40,000 to your juniors. Lead by example. This is a laudable object, but there is practical difficulty."Granting the petitioners two weeks' time, the court allowed them to make further submissions on the issue before proceeding with a final decision.- EndsMust Watch
Hans India
7 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Batla House demolitions: Delhi High Court asks DDA to maintain status quo till July 10
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday told the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the city government to maintain status quo till July 10 as it dealt with a writ petition filed by seven 'long-standing' residents of Batla House against "the arbitrary and illegal threat of demolition". Posting the matter for further hearing on July 10 with other pending petitions, a bench of Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta asked the authorities in the national capital to respond to the petitioners' claim that the former have sought to indiscriminately target properties beyond the identified area and without issuance of individual notices. The petition, filed by advocate Fahad Khan, claimed that the petitioners have not been served with any demolition notices as required by law, and during a field survey, their properties were marked for demolition and were orally informed of imminent coercive action. "The threatened action thus amounts to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, the right to livelihood under Article 21, and the equal protection guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution," said the petition. Adding that the petitioners have not been served with any notice whatsoever, the plea demanded that the authorities should be restrained from taking any demolition action without complying with due process of law, and to maintain the status quo pending a proper demarcation and assessment under the PM-UDAY Scheme. The Delhi High Court has already passed status quo orders after several writ pleas were filed against the demolition notices, claiming that the petitioners' properties fell outside Khasra No. 279 or fell within Khasra No. 279 but are eligible under the PM-UDAY Scheme. The DDA action stems from a Supreme Court directive ordering the clearance of encroachments on public land. The apex court order also clarified that if the occupants are aggrieved by the demolition notices, they are free to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Earlier, the Delhi High Court had declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader Amanatullah Khan, challenging the proposed demolition action. A division bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia observed that only aggrieved residents can make a claim that their properties exist beyond the proposed demolition site. Sensing the disinclination of the court to extend any relief, the senior counsel, appearing on the AAP leader's behalf, sought permission to withdraw the PIL. In its June 11 order, the Justice Kathpalia-led Bench took note of the submission that the legislator from Delhi's Okhla constituency would inform the residents of their right to file appropriate legal proceedings within three working days, and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
