Five-judge bench of SC allows review of NEET judgment; orders fresh hearing

In an important development, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India has allowed the petitions seeking review of the 2013 judgment of the three-judge bench of the court which had ruled that the Medical Council of India’s (MCI) notifications for holding common entrance tests for MBBS, BDS and post-graduate medical courses were invalid. Court has now directed for a fresh hearing in the matter.

On 18 July 2013, by a majority of 2:1, court had held that the Medical Council of India was not empowered under the Indian Medical Councils Act, 1956 to conduct the NEET and had quashed the relevant notifications and regulations. Dissenting from the majority view of then Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir and Justice Vikramjit Sen; Justice Anil R Dave had held that the “impugned notifications were are not only legal in the eyes of law but were also a boon to the students aspiring to join medical profession.”

The 2013 judgment was passed after 115 petitions were filed before the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts (which were later transferred to the Supreme Court). Majority view had held the notifications to be in violation of Articles 19(1)(g), 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution of India.

After the judgment was passed, several review petitions, including those by Medical Council of India, were filed before the Supreme Court of India. On 22 October 2013, a bench presided over by Justices HL Dattu (as he was then), Anil R Dave and Vikramjit Sen, issued a notice in the review petitions. Bench had ordered:

Application for oral hearing is granted.
Issue notice.

Thereafter on 21 January 2016, a bench comprising of Justices Anil R Dave, C Nagappan and Adarsh Kumar Goel, ordered:

We are further told that Civil Appeal No.4060 of 2009, involving similar issue is already pending before a larger Bench and therefore, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India so that all the matters can be heard by one particular Bench at the earliest so that admissions for the ensuing academic session can be governed by the order that may be passed by this Court.

Pronouncing the order today, the five-judge bench held:

After giving our thoughtful and due consideration, we are of the view that the judgment delivered in Christian Medical College (supra) needs reconsideration. We do not propose to state reasons in detail at this stage so as to see that it may not prejudicially affect the hearing of the matters. For this purpose we have kept in mind the following observations appearing in the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Sheonandan Paswan…

The five-judge bench, presided over by Justice Dave, who had dissented with the majority view in the 2013 judgment, further held:

Suffice it is to mention that the majority view has not taken into consideration some binding precedents and more particularly, we find that there was no discussion among the members of the Bench before pronouncement of the judgment.

Finally, allowing the review petitions, court ordered:

We, therefore, allow these review petitions and recall the judgment dated 18th July, 2013 and direct that the matters be heard afresh. The review petitions stand disposed of as allowed.

http://www.legallyindia.com/blogs/five-judge-bench-of-sc-allows-review-of-neet-judgment-orders-fresh-hearing-read-order

Bench finds factual errors in single judge’s order

THE HINDU

Finding factual errors in an order passed by a single judge in a case related to suspension of a government servant, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court Bench here has agreed with the litigant that he would certainly get affected due to the sweeping observations made by the judge and consequent directions issued by him on the basis of the erroneous findings.

Partly allowing a writ appeal filed by R. Ramasundaram, Justices S. Manikumar and C.T. Selvam pointed out that the Personal Assistant (General) to Tiruchi Collector had suspended the appellant under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on the ground that a criminal case had been registered against him under Section 380 (theft in a dwelling house) of Indian Penal Code.

The suspension order was passed on June 5, 2014 and since nothing transpired for long thereafter and no departmental proceedings were initiated against him, the appellant made a representation to the Collector on April 16, 2015 to revoke the order.

He also filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Collector to consider the representation within a stipulated period of time.

Erroneous observation

Disposing of the writ petition on June 26, the single judge erroneously observed in his order that a charge memo had been issued to the petitioner after his suspension and held that the High Court could not intervene in the departmental enquiry.

He went on to direct the Collector to conduct the enquiry on a day-to-day basis and complete it within a year.

Not in agreement with the order, the Division Bench said: “Going through the materials on record we find that no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated.”

It gave liberty to the appellant to the approach the Collector once again for revocation of the suspension order subject to the outcome of the criminal case and left it open to the officer to decide the course of action to be adopted.

The judge erroneously observed that a charge memo was issued to petitioner after his suspension

Give Up Practice of Engaging Guest Lecturers: High Court

By Express News Service

CHENNAI: Appalled by the practice of the Dr Ambedkar Law University engaging guest lecturers, Madras High Court has directed the varsity to give up the practice.

"We are appalled by the contention raised in the counter affidavit, inasmuch as the University seems to be running on the strength of guest lecturers. If that be the case, they can dispense with the appointment of regular professors or lecturers in respect of all the subjects. This is not the way a University can function. Every subject which is being taught in a University should be by a full time professor or lecturer," a division bench of Justices R Sudhakar and S Vadyanathan has said.

The bench was allowing a writ appeal from PRL Rajavenkatesan, seeking to quash an order of a single Judge dated August 5, 2013 refusing to appoint him as an assistant professor in environmental law in the Law University.

"A Guest Lecturer is only a supplement and he/she cannot be a primary mode of imparting education. We find that the attitude of the University, that is to say that there are guest lecturers to teach various Law subjects and there is no need to appoint regular faculty members, would be an affront to the system of education and an abdication of its role as an educational institution. This approach goes against the basic tenet of education that regular teachers should be appointed be it schools, colleges or universities, so that the students are not deprived of a full-time regular teaching faculty. We therefore reject the plea of the University that a full-time Professor/Lecturer is not required, on the contrary it is a must," the bench said.

After noting that though the appellant had secured the highest marks in environmental law, he had not been selected. The bench directed the University to redo the selection process in respect of Environmental Law by appointing an appropriate Committee and complete the said process within four weeks on the basis of the records already available. The Committee is also entitled to assess the merits of the rival candidates as has been done in the case of Business Law, International Law and Intellectual Property Rights. Discretion is left to the University to maintain the earlier coram as far as possible and if there is difficulty in getting the full complement as before, they can choose competent alternative members, the bench said.

FIR against UGC official over sexual harassment

New Delhi: In a shocking case of alleged sexual harassment in University Grants Commission, an FIR has been filed against deputy secretary AK Khanduri who also happens to be a member of the complaints committee on sexual harassment of the organization.

A senior Delhi Police officer told TOI, "An FIR was registered immediately after a complaint was received and investigation is being done. Soon both the parties will be called." The complainant, not a permanent employee of UGC, has alleged that Khanduri has been making sexual overtures to her for the past few months besides trying to allure her with gifts and other things. On his part, Khanduri said, "I do not know what the complainant said but police did speak to me on Wednesday. This is an occupational hazard if you work in the administrative wing of the organization." Khanduri said he had met the woman only once.

While UGC brass did not respond to repeated queries from TOI, vice-chairperson H Devaraj said he has only heard about it. UGC Secretary JS Sandhu did not take phone calls nor did he reply to text messages. UGC chairperson Ved Prakash is abroad.

Sources said the UGC administration is putting "immense pressure" on the complainant to withdraw the case. "She has also written to the President and PM," an official said.

V-C selection process must be strengthened: academics

While the Madras High Court has nudged the State Government to amend the Universities Act in tune with the UGC Regulations 2010, a section of academics feels that this alone would not be an effective to tool to identify and appoint persons with real calibre as Vice-Chancellors to universities.

‘Clause not meaningful’

“The UGC clause that only a person with 10 years experience as professor must be appointed as Vice-Chancellor serves no meaningful purpose as it excludes talented persons serving as assistant professors,” a teachers’ union representative said.

P. Jayagandhi of the Association of University Teachers feels there is a need for initiating discussion on how to strengthen the process for selection of Vice-Chancellors. “Since the Central government has not mandated that the States follow the UGC regulations, it should initiate a discussion with the State government on the qualifications for Vice-Chancellors,” he says.

A former professor of University of Madras feels the UGC’s stand in the court that it would initiate action against universities that violate its guidelines could have a bearing on a case recently filed by the Madras University Teachers Association, pertaining to violation of UGC guidelines and the Madras University Act in the nomination of a person to its Vice-Chancellor search committee.

The Association had questioned the nomination of a Ph.D student to the search committee.

‘Aim for quality’

“There is sufficient quantity in higher education. What we must aim for now is quality. We need a person with broader exposure,” he adds.



“Centre must initiate a discussion with State on qualifications for Vice-Chancellors”

Amend statutes or face UGC fund cut: HC tells govt.

The litigation was filed last year when the MKU Vice Chancellor Search Committee notified minimum qualification for aspirants that were contrary to what was prescribed in the UGC Regulations 2010.

Noting that the University Grants Commission (UGC) could penalise universities which do not function in accordance with its regulations, the Madras High Court on Wednesday nudged the State Government to amend the statutes governing its universities to adopt the UGC Regulations of 2010.

“The Government should now be quite aware of the consequences which will flow to them on their inaction or refusal to amend the provision of the statutes (of the State universities) in line with the UGC Regulations and should be ready to face them. This may entail difficulty in the functioning of the State universities on account of the lack of support and fund flow from the UGC,” the First Bench of Chief Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayan observed.

“It would, no doubt, be advisable and desirable for the State Government to amend the Acts in terms of the UGC Regulations,” the judges added while closing a public interest litigation petition filed by eminent academician Prof. M Anandakrishnan and social activist A. Narayanan challenging the dilution of norms in selecting the Vice Chancellor for the Madurai Kamaraj University.

The litigation was filed last year when the MKU Vice Chancellor Search Committee notified minimum qualification for aspirants to the top post that were contrary to what was prescribed in the UGC Regulations 2010. While the apex regulatory body had prescribed that only a candidate who has served as professor for a minimum period of 10 years as one of the qualifications for a Vice Chancellor aspirant, the Search Committee had invited application including from Assistant Professors.

The petitioners alleged that large-scale corruptions have occurred in various universities, and to prevent such scams, the universities must follow the guidelines prescribed by the UGC while making appointments to key posts.

In its counter, the State government contended that under the provisions of the Madurai Kamaraj University Act, 1965 a search committee was constituted by the Chancellor.

“The Search Committee, being an independent and autonomous body, can prescribe the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor. The UGC regulations are mandatory only for the Central Universities and not for other educational institutions under the purview of State legislation,” it argued.

However, the UGC counsel made it clear that the Search Committee has got no powers to fix new qualification lower than the UGC norms, and hence, the action of the Committee is without jurisdiction.

Further, the UGC could penalise universities which violated its guidelines.

On behalf of the Search Committee, it was submitted that since the State government has not officially adopted the UGC Regulations 2010, the Madurai Kamaraj University had not amended its Act and statutes in line with the UGC guidelines. Hence, it was not bound by the UGC Regulations.

In their order, the judges, noting that not all universities are able to adopt an appointment procedure with little or no government involvement, said there is no doubt that some facts about the manner of appointment of Vice Chancellor should be given consideration. The bench observed that it is obvious that the selection of Vice Chancellor does not only depend upon the norms laid down in the State and Universities Act and the UGC guidelines but also other contextual factors like regional, State and communal pressures.

UGC to Prescribe Standards for LLM

UGC to Prescribe Standards for LLM

By Express News Service

Published: 08th April 2016 05:47 AM

Last Updated: 08th April 2016 06:11 AM

COIMBATORE: The University Grants Commission has directed universities to provide details of their LLM courses so that appropriate standards could be prescribed for the curriculum, credits and duration.

In 2012, the UGC had framed guidelines for the one-year LLB programme, after which a number of universities and colleges started offering the course. However, concern was raised about its quality in some institutions, which did not have the faculty and infrastructure prescribed by the UGC.

The UGC then constituted an expert committee to go into the issue. It observed that the two types of LLM programmes — the one-year course and the two-year course — have created confusion. It was thus necessary to prescribe appropriate standards for curriculum, credits and duration.

The committee recommended that information on infrastructure, faculty, curriculum, etc, should be collected from all universities and colleges conducting the LLM programme in a prescribed format to determine the extent to which they are adhering to the UGC guidelines.

The UGC has now asked universities to provide the details of the one-year LLM programme in 15 days.

The UGC has asked for information on course components, staff pattern (professor, associate professor, assistant professor), procedures adopted in admission, trimester/semester, review and updating of curriculum, number of contact hours per week and evaluation scheme among others.