AICTE asks states to increase engg course fee, TN colleges seek 50% hike

TNN | Feb 10, 2020, 01.22 PM IST

CHENNAI: With more than 500 engineering colleges in the state awaiting revision of fee in 2020-21 after a gap of three years, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has urged state governments and fee committees to consider hiking fee for engineering and other technical courses to meet the pay revision mandated for faculty members by the council.

The colleges want fee to be hiked by at least 50% from the next academic year.

In a recent letter to all state governments, AICTE member-secretary Rajiv Kumar has urged them to direct state admission and fee regulation committees to take into account the sixth and seventh pay commission notifications and other parameters while fixing the fee.

The council had received complaints that technical institutions fail to pay their faculty members salary stipulated by the pay panels.

“Most of the members have claimed that they are unable to comply with the AICTE’s directions due to the (quantum of) tuition fee fixed by state fee regulation committees,” Rajiv Kumar said, adding that fee reimbursement from governments for SC/ST students also gets delayed.

“In the absence of reasonable fee, colleges have difficulty in maintaining standards and paying salaries to their faculty,” he said. Justice Srikrishna committee has fixed a maximum fee of Rs 1.44 lakh to Rs 1.58 lakh per year for BE and B Tech courses. But there is no minimum fee.

TN has lowest engg course fee among southern states

AICTE wants colleges to pay salaries as per seventh pay commission scale. Without allowance, the basic salary alone comes to around Rs 57,000 for entry-level assistant professors under new scale. With the current fee structure, we cannot give such a salary,” said R M Kishore, vice-chairman, RMK Engineering College.

Currently, engineering colleges pay between Rs 15,000 and Rs 30,000 for entry-level posts. Colleges with fewer admissions pay only 10,000 for new faculty members.

“Srikrishna commission fixed Rs 1.47 lakh as the maximum fee for rural colleges to meet the sixth pay commission salary standards. AICTE says it would reduce student intake if we don’t pay as per revised pay. We will approach the council to fix a minimum fee for engineering courses to meet our salary demand,” he added.

A top official from a city college said engineering colleges can offer new salary structure only if the course fee is raised to Rs 85,000- Rs 90,000 for even governmentquota seats. “Only then we can even touch the breakeven point,” he said.

A college principal pointed out that Tamil Nadu has the lowest engineering course fee among all southern states.

“To break-even, engineering colleges must fill 70% of their seats. But only 30% of colleges were able to fill 70% or more seats,” said Maluk Mohamad, chairman, MAM College of Engineering and Technology in Trichy. “The fee committee should increase fee for all categories to Rs 75,000. Only then we can pay good salary to our faculty members,” he said.

After the death of Justice N V Balasubramanian, who was heading the committees on fixation of fee for self-financing professional colleges in TN, in November last year, the state government is yet to appoint a new chairman for the panel.

“Colleges swill get good faculty members only if they pay good salary. With good faculty members they can offer quality engineering education. So the fee hike is necessary. But the state government or Anna University should monitor whether the colleges are paying their faculty members the revised salary after the fee hike,” said E Balagurusamy, former vice-chancellor, Anna University.

U.P. Medical Council

Top court upholds validity of SC/ST Amendment Act
TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi:11.02.2020

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld amendments to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act which restored the law to its earlier rigour.

In 2018, the apex court had diluted the SC/ST Act to prevent abuse of stringent provisions by allowing grant of anticipatory bail, sanction of higher authorities for arresting a government servant and making it mandatory for police to carry out preliminary inquiry to establish prima facie veracity of the charges made under the law. After Parliament carried out amendments to render the SC’s 2018 judgment toothless and restore the law’s earlier stringency, the SC had taken up petitions seeking review of its judgment. On October 1 last year, the SC recalled its 2018 judgment.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and S R Bhatt said on Monday, “The matter is rendered of academic importance as we had restored the position as prevailed before the 2018 judgment. This means, there will be no provision of anticipatory bail or preliminary inquiry under SC/ST Act as far as arrest is concerned. No sanction would be required for proceeding against a government servant under this law.”

However, the SC said, “A preliminary inquiry is permissible only in circumstances as per the law laid down by a constitution bench of this court in Lalita Kumar case.” It also said though anticipatory bail and regular bail provisions did not apply to cases under the SC/ST Act, the bar created by Section 18A of the SC/ST Act would not apply if the complainant did not make out a prima facie case. Carving out an exception, the bench said, “The court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the case (under SC/ST Act) to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding review petitions.”

Justice Bhat, in a separate but concurrent judgment, said the allegation of misuse of SC/ST Act was mostly prevalent in urban areas but it did not reflect the prevailing widespread social prejudice against members of oppressed classes. “It is important to reiterate and emphasise that unless provisions of the Act are enforced in their true letter and spirit, with utmost earnestness and dispatch, the dream and ideal of a casteless society will remain only adream,” he said.

The SC bench said, ‘There will be no provision of anticipatory bail or preliminary inquiry under SC/ST Act as far as arrest is concerned. No sanction would be required for proceeding against a government servant under this law’

GAVEL NOVEL

HC asks 28 students involved in clash to clean hospital ward

K.Kaushik@timesgroup.com

Madurai:11.02.2020

Quashing an FIR registered against 28 students of a private engineering college who were involved in a clash, the Madras high court has directed them to clean the general ward of the K A P Viswanatham Government Medical College at Trichy.

Justice A D Jagadish Chandira who heard the petition filed by the students to quash the FIR which registered against them also directed them to get a certificate from the dean of the college after cleaning the ward and posted the case for reporting compliance on February 26.

In July 2019, a clash broke out between two groups of students from a private college at Trichy. The clash was over a wordy duel between the fourth and third year students after the former questioned the latter for allegedly teasing the women students. The students started assaulting each other using beer bottles and wooden logs.

Following this incident, the E Pudur police registered a case against the students under Section 147 (punishment for rioting) and 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), Section 294(b) and 506 (ii) (Punishment for criminal intimidation, whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment) of the IPC.

Both the groups agreed to a compromise and moved the high court Madurai bench seeking to quash the FIR which was registered against them.

TNPSC exam scams: Five more arrested

Chennai:11.02.2020

Tamil Nadu CBCID sleuths investigating the TNPSC exam scams on Monday arrested five people, including two VAOs and three drivers, taking the total number of people arrested so far to 40.

The CB-CID is currently investigating three TNPSC examinations – 2019 group IV, 2017 group 2A and 2016 VAO test – in which large scale malpractices were suspected have taken place. On Monday, officials arrested drivers K Karthik and T Senthilkumar of Ennore and Sabudeen of Perambur. They were involved in escorting the vehicles used by scam mastermind Jayakumar and another suspect, TNPSC staff Omkanthan, when the tampering of answer sheets happened on the night of September 1, last year when the answer sheet bundles were transported in a van from Rameswaram to Chennai. These drivers were piloting the vehicles of the other two to make sure that there is no vehicle checks by police en-route. TNN

குரூப் - 2' தேர்வில் தவறு நடக்கவில்லை: டி.என்.பி.எஸ்.சி., விளக்கம்

Added : பிப் 08, 2020 23:45

சென்னை: 'குரூப் - 2 தேர்வில், தவறு ஏதும் நடக்கவில்லை' என, தமிழ்நாடு அரசுப் பணியாளர் தேர்வாணையமான, டி.என்.பி.எஸ்.சி., அறிவித்துள்ளது.

தேர்வாணையம் ெவளியிட்ட செய்திக்குறிப்பில் கூறியிருப்பதாவது:சமீபத்தில், குரூப் - 2 தேர்வு முடிவுகள் ெவளியிடப்பட்டன. இதில், 1997ல் பிறந்தவர்கள், அதிகமாக தேர்ச்சி பெற்றிருப்பது, சந்தேகத்திற்குரியதாக உள்ளது என, செய்திகள் ெவளியாகின. இது குறித்து, தேர்வாணையம் ஆய்வு செய்ததில், தவறு எதுவும் நடக்கவில்லை என்பது, உறுதி செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது. ஏற்கனவே அறிவித்தபடி, அடுத்த வாரம் தொகுதி இரண்டுக்கான கலந்தாய்வு நிறைவு பெற்று, தேர்வு நடவடிக்கைகள் முழுவதும் முடிந்ததும், தேர்வர்களின் முழு விபரமும், தேர்வாணைய இணையதளத்தில் ெவளியிடப்படும்.

அதேபோல், ஒருங்கிணைந்த பொறியாளர் பணிகளுக்கான, இளநிலை கட்டடக் கலைஞர் பணிக்கான நேர்முகத் தேர்வுக்கு அழைக்கப்பட்ட, 39 பேரில், சென்னை மையத்திலிருந்து மட்டும், 31 பேர் தேர்வு செய்யப்பட்டதாகவும், இதில் தவறு நடந்திருக்கலாம் எனவும், சந்தேகங்கள் எழுப்பப்பட்டன.

இது குறித்து ஆய்வு நடத்தியதில், தவறு நடக்கவில்லை என்பது, உறுதி செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது; 31 பேரும் வெவ்வேறு தேர்வுக்கூடங்களில், தேர்வு எழுதி உள்ளனர். இப்பணிகளுக்கான கலந்தாய்வு முடிந்துள்ளது. தேர்வு நடவடிக்கை முழுமையாக முடிந்ததும், தேர்வர்களின் முழு விபரங்களும், இணையதளத்தில் ெவளியிடப்படும்.யூகங்கள் அடிப்படையிலான செய்திகளால், நல்ல முறையில் தேர்வுக்கு தயாராகி, நேர்மையாக பங்கேற்கும் தேர்வர்களின் திறமையை குறைத்து கூறுவது வருத்தத்திற்குரியது.

இதுபோன்ற உண்மைக்கு புறம்பான வதந்திகளை பரப்புவோர் மீது, தேர்வாணையம் தன் கண்டனத்தை பதிவு செய்கிறது.தகுந்த ஆதாரங்களுடன் பெறப்படும் புகார்கள் மீது, தேர்வாணையம் உடனடி யாக ஆய்வு செய்யும். தவறு நடந்திருப்பதற்கான முகாந்திரம் இருந்தால், குற்றவியல் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க, உறுதுணையாக இருந்து வருகிறது. இனிவரும் காலங்களிலும், தேர்வாணையத்தின் நிலைப்பாட்டில், எவ்வித மாற்றமும் இருக்காது. இவ்வாறு, அதில் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது.

Reservation in promotion in public posts not a fundamental right: SC

‘State government cannot be directed to provide quota’

09/02/2020, LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, ,NEW DELHI

Reservation in promotion in public posts cannot be claimed as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has reiterated in a judgment.

A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta observed that State governments are not bound to make reservation. Even the courts could not issue a mandamus directing the States to provide reservation.

“There is no doubt that the State government is not bound to make reservation. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the court directing the State government to provide reservation,” the court observed in its February 7 verdict. Citing Constitution Bench precedents that had settled the law, the court said Articles 16 (4) and 16 (4-A) of the Constitution did not confer individuals with a fundamental right to claim reservation in promotion.

The Articles empower the State to make reservation in matters of appointment and promotion in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes only “if in the opinion of the State they are not adequately represented in the services of the State”.

“The inadequacy of representation is a matter within the subjective satisfaction of the State,” the judgment said. Thus, the State government has discretion “to consider providing reservations, if the circumstances so warrant”.

“It is a settled law that the State government cannot be directed to provide reservation for appointment in public posts. Similarly, the State is not bound to make reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions,” the court explained.