Man gets 7-yr jail for holding two govt jobs Continued To Draw Pay From Health, Edu Depts

Man gets 7-yr jail for holding two govt jobs Continued To Draw Pay From Health, Edu Depts 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 11.03.2022

Lucknow : A local court in Barabanki sentenced a man to seven years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 for fraudulently securing and continuing two govt jobs simultaneously in the health and education departments using the same educational certificate. 

Delivering the verdict on Tuesday, Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Sudha Singh held convict Jaiprakash Singh guilty under the charges of IPC sections 420 (cheating), 467 read with Section 471 (forgery of valuable security and using forged documents as genuine), and Section 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating). 

The court noted that Jaiprakash Singh deliberately concealed facts and continued to draw salaries from two govt departments for years. The court also observed that the state govt is free to recover the salary and allowances received by the accused from both posts, as he illegally benefited from public funds. 

According to prosecution officials, Jaiprakash, a resident of Narauli village in the Satrikh police station area, was initially appointed as an NMA (non-medical assistant) at the primary health centre (PHC), Sangipur in Pratapgarh district on Dec 26, 1979. Later, using the same educational marksheet and certificates, he secured another govt job as an assistant teacher under the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) in Barabanki on June 19, 1993. 

Despite holding the post in the health department, Jaiprakash allegedly continued working as teacher in Barabanki while simultaneously drawing salary from both the departments. The case revealed that he remained associated with the primary school at Narauli in Harkh block of Barabanki for nearly 16 years, even while his records in the health department showed him as an employee at the Sangipur PHC in Pratapgarh. Times of India ePaper lucknow - Read Today’s Eng

K’taka HC upholds mom’s right to give child her surname

K’taka HC upholds mom’s right to give child her surname

 Vasantha.Kumar@timesofindia.com  27.02.2026

Bengaluru : Karnataka HC has ruled that inclusion of the mother’s family name in the birth certificate of a child does not dilute or extinguish the substantive legal rights of any person, including that of the biological father. Granting relief to a nineyear-old girl and her mother, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “The biological and legal relationship between the child and the father, including the child’s rights of inheritance, succession, and maintenance, remains unaltered. The change sought by the mother was merely one of nome-nclature reflecting the real family environment in which the child is being raised.” 

The case arose from a livein relationship between two Nepalese nationals in Bengaluru. Their daughter was born in Feb 2017, and a birth certificate was issued in March 2017. The child’s father later ended the relationship and returned to Nepal. When the mother approached local authorities at Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to delete the father’s name and substitute it with her own, the request was rejected citing Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. She then moved the HC. After examining the statutory provisions, the court held that the registrar had the authority to carry out corrections and the refusal amounted to a failure to exercise statutory power. 

Invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the HC directed the issuance of a fresh birth certificate within four weeks. Stressing the “best interest of the child”, the judge noted that children abandoned by a parent were particularly vulnerable.

HC overturns order for third valuation of answer scripts

HC overturns order for third valuation of answer scripts 

MBBS STUDENTS 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 23.02.2026

Bengaluru : The high court set aside a single bench order that required a third valuation of answer scripts of certain MBBS students, providing relief to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS). A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha held that the ordinance or notification governing the central assessment programme (CAP) for theory paper assessment of all undergraduate health science courses of the university benefits students. CAP provides for two valuations and considers the higher marks awarded between the two. On July 30,2025, a single bench issued two directions. Firstly, the RGUHS syndicate and academic council were directed to reconsider the matter afresh, specifically with regard to providing essential key answers or model answers for descriptive questions, in order to prevent anomalies or ambiguities during initial evaluations.

 Secondly, RGUHS was told to forward the answer scripts of petitioners to an additional evaluator for fresh assessment, in light of the significant discrepancy between the marks awarded by the evaluators.

 RGUHS challenged the order. The division bench noted that National Medical Commission (NMC) seemed to have altered its stand and that subjective answers could not be evaluated on the basis of key phrases or terms used in the answers. RGUHS argued that answers to medical science questions were evaluated based on students’ understanding and knowledge. “In our view, it would not be appropriate for this court to examine how answers to questions in a particular subject are required to be evaluated. 

The university is at liberty to take an appropriate decision uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order,” the bench said. “We are unable to accept that referring the answer scripts to a third valuer would, in any manner, mitigate this element of subjectivity in the evaluation of answer scripts,” the division bench  observed.

 “If the third evaluator awards higher marks – that is, higher than the marks awarded by the two evaluators – the question would arise as to which of the marks is required to be accepted. There is no provision to declare the results on the basis of the highest marks awarded by three evaluators,” it observed while allowing the appeals filed by RGUHS.

HC: Administrative delay cannot defeat employee rights

HC: Administrative delay cannot defeat employee rights

Sureshkumar.K@timesofindia.com 18.02.2026

Chennai : Madras high court made it clear that administrative delay by a municipal corporation or govt cannot defeat employee rights and, similarly, subsequent GOs cannot nullify earlier accrued rights. Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observation while allowing a plea moved by 35 employees of the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) who were recruited on a temporary basis as malaria assistants, tax assistants, office assistants, junior assistants, storm water drain workers, and road workers. 

In 1999, the govt brought in a scheme through a GO dated May 27, under which employees who were working as of May 4, 1999, were declared eligible for regularization. As per the scheme, they were appointed in entry-level regular posts and paid a consolidated salary of ₹2,000 per month for one year. They would be brought under a regular time scale of pay after one year and regularised after completion of that one-year period. Thus, as per the scheme, the employees were eligible for regularization by May 27, 2000. However, the scheme was not implemented immediately; instead, the govt issued a GO dated Feb 23, 2006, regularising the employees only from 2006. Aggrieved, the employees moved the court. 

Opposing the plea, the govt contended that an employee appointed temporarily cannot claim regularization from an earlier date as a matter of right. Refusing to concur, the court held that, through the 1999 GO, the govt granted entitlement to regularisation after one year. Through the GO, employees in service as of May 4, 1999, acquired the right to regularization, the court said.

The court made the findings based on the orders passed by a full bench of the court in S Dhanasekaran Vs Govt of Tamil Nadu. Since the order was under appeal before the Supreme Court, the judge directed the GCC to absorb the employees with effect from 2000, subject to the final outcome of the appeal pending before the SC.

Unmarried, widowed & divorced daughters of govt staff eligible for pension

Unmarried, widowed & divorced daughters of govt staff eligible for pension

 TIMES NEWS NETWORK 11.02.2026. BHOPAL 

Bhopal : In a major decision, the state cabinet headed by chief minister Mohan Yadav on Tuesday approved a new rule in the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules whereby unmarried, widowed and divorced daughters of state govt employees were made eligible for family pension. Briefing the media after the cabinet meeting, minister for MSME Chaitanya Kashyap said, “Cabinet approved the provision made for divorced daughters of employees to now claim family pension.” 

So far, only the spouse, dependent parents and dependent children up to the age of 25 were eligible to draw family pension of the deceased govt employee. A state govt release further clarified, “Under Rule 44 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2026, unmarried, widowed and divorced daughters were included among the members eligible for family pension.”

‘Will divide society’: SC stays new UGC equity regulations

‘Will divide society’: SC stays new UGC equity regulations 

‘Dangerous Impact On Goal Of Castelessness’ 

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesofindia.com 30.01.2026

New Delhi : Supreme Court put on hold on Thursday the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, taking serious exception to several of its provisions and saying that these could fuel societal division and have a dangerous impact on the goal of a casteless society. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard three petitions and said that while implementation of the 2026 regulations would be on hold till further orders, the 2012 regulations would continue to be in force to address grievances relating to caste-based discrimination against students on campuses of educational institutions.

 “We are sorry to say, the Regulations, prima facie, the language is completely vague, the provisions are capable of being misused, and the language needs to be re-modulated and redesigned,” the bench said and asked for the setting up of an expert panel. The CJI said, “In the country, after 75 years, whatever we have gained to move towards the goal of casteless society, are we enacting a regressive policy?” The justices said that while they were all for regulations for creation of “a free, inclusive and an equitable atmosphere in universities… there are 4-5 serious concerns. If those are not addressed, the regulations will otherwise have sweeping consequences...” 

The CJI flagged another provision in the regulations as problematic, pointing out that it proposed separate hostels based on the caste of students.

Should not go to a stage that has segregated schools: SC 

For God’s sake, please do not do that. In hostels, students from every community live together. There are inter-caste marriages also. We should move towards a casteless society by assimilating students of all regions and (students of) all castes must have equal rights and live harmoniously in universities. We cannot go backwards. There must not be any segregation.” The hearing took place amid agitation by sections of upper-caste students against the regulations for allegedly being discriminatory and exclusionary and for being oblivious to the changed socioeconomic milieu where newly empowered OBCs have also been accused of discriminating against others, including those from upper castes. Significantly, OBCs are not under purview of 2012 regulations, which snap back in action after SC’s order Thursday. 

Leading the arguments for petitioners, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain said the regulations presume that only a certain category of students belonging to certain castes face discrimination in universities. They keep general category candidates outside their purview, leaving such students without remedies for discrimination faced by them. Asking Centre and UGC to respond to petitions by March 19, SC said, “We want to examine constitutional validity and legality of 2026 Regulations. We would like Union govt, with concurrence and approval of court, to constitute apanel of experts comprising eminent academicians and scholars who understand our social conditions to study regulations & its possible impacts.”

Physiotherapists entitled to use ‘Dr’ prefix: Kerala HC

Physiotherapists entitled to use ‘Dr’ prefix: Kerala HC 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 28.01.2026

Kochi : The Kerala high court has ruled that not only medical professionals, but physiotherapists and occupational therapists, too, are entitled to use the prefix ‘Dr’ with their names.

Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by the state chapter of Indian Medical Association and others, which had challenged the use of the prefix by physiotherapists and occupational therapists, Justice V G Arun said there was no legal bar on such professionals prefixing ‘Dr’ to their name. The petitioners contended that while specialist medical professionals in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation are qualified doctors, physiotherapists and occupational therapists merely provide supportive services. They argued that such professionals do not possess the qualification to function as first-contact healthcare providers, and that their qualifications, at best, enable them to administer physiotherapy under the instructions of a qualified medical practitioner. 

The petitioners also challenged the Competency-Based Curriculum for Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, which permits the use of the prefix ‘Dr’ with the suffix ‘PT’/‘OT’, contending that this equates them with modern medical practitioners. 

The HC, however, noted that the term ‘doctor’ originates from the Latin word doctor, meaning teacher or instructor, and that neither the National Medical Commission (NMC) Act nor allied statutes provide for the exclusive use of the prefix ‘Dr’ by qualified medical professionals. 

In the absence of such statutory provisions, the petitioners could not claim an exclusive right to use the prefix ‘Dr’, the bench said.

HC: No addl certificate needed for MD anaesthesiology docs

HC: No addl certificate needed for MD anaesthesiology docs

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 21.01.2026

Bengaluru : The high court has held that a medical doctor with a three-year MD degree in anaesthesiology qualifies as a registered medical practitioner under Rule 2(iv) (ib) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Rules and could thus be nominated as a designated doctor. The ruling came while allowing a joint petition filed by the Mangaluru branch of Indian Society of Anaesthesiologists, the Nursing Home and Hospital Management Association, Mangaluru, and Mangala Hospital and Mangala Kidney Foundation, Mangaluru. 

Mangala Hospital had challenged a June 27, 2025 communication from the assistant drugs controller of Mangaluru, refusing to renew its licence on grounds that the designated doctor — though an MD in anaesthesiology — lacked a certificate in pain relief and palliative care for opioid-dependence treatment. The official had indicated that the licence would be renewed if such a certificate was produced. The hospital claimed that MD anaesthesiology training inherently includes structured instruction in pain management, palliative care, and opioid-based therapy, including clinical use of narcotic analgesics, as mandated in the curriculum. It added that there was no statutory or regulatory requirement under the governing medical or narcotics control framework mandating the acquisition of any separate or additional certificate for a medical practitioner so qualified to provide pain relief, palliative care, or opioid-based treatment. 

On the other hand, the state govt defended its action, contending that the rules mandated possession of such training as a prerequisite. However, deputy solicitor general H Shanthi Bhushan, appearing for the central govt, submitted that a degree in MD anaesthesiology was a recognised postgraduate qualification under National Medical Commission (NMC) and inherently satisfied the requirement under Rule 52N of the NDPS Rules, 1985, for registered medical practitioners to possess, prescribe, and dispense  essential narcotic drugs for pain relief and palliative care. He also submitted that no additional training was required for MD anaesthesiology holders to obtain an additional certificate or training in terms of Form 3F of the NDPS Rules. 

He also placed on record the opinion of subject expert Dr Atul Ambekar, professor, National Drug Dependence Treatment Centre, and department of psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. After perusing the materials on record, Justice Suraj Govindaraj pointed out that the central govt itself had categorically come to the conclusion that a registered medical practitioner holding an MD (anaesthesiology) degree does not require supplementary training in order to prescribe essential narcotic drugs for palliative care and pain management. Allowing the petition, the judge directed the assistant drugs controller, Mangaluru, to consider the qualification of the nominated doctor as sufficient and issue the necessary certificate of licence renewal to Mangala Hospital. 

9 years is enough punishment! Supreme Court tells university to consider apology of doctor penalised for wearing digital watch in exam

9 years is enough punishment! Supreme Court tells university to consider apology of doctor penalised for wearing digital watch in exam 

Written By : Barsha Misra

Published On 17 Jan 2026 1:27 PM 

Supreme Court of India

New Delhi: After considering the appeal of a young doctor's father, the Supreme Court has allowed the medico to tender an unconditional apology to the medical college for wearing a digital watch in an exam.

Further, the top court bench has also requested the university to consider his representation with "utmost sympathy" and an endeavour to save the young professional's career.

While considering the plea by the father, the Apex Court observed that the son's nine-year professional exile was "a more than sufficient punishment having regard to the nature of the misdemeanours", and also noted that any further blockage of his career would be "too harsh and disproportionate".

"At the end of the day, there is a father standing in court with folded hands, trying to save the academic career of his son, in whose MBBS degree, it appears that the University has made some adverse remarks based upon the history of adopting unfair means. The sheer frustration caused due to the inability of his son to pursue higher studies, is seemingly prompting the first petitioner, seemingly has brought negativity and is instigating the first petitioner to file complaints here and there. While we do not find any merit in those complaints, within the scope of interference under Article 137 of the Constitution, and consequently, we see no ground to interfere with the imprinted order passed by the Bar Council of India..." ordered the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

The matter goes back to February 2017, when at Chennai-based Sri Ramachandra Medical College, the petitioner's son was found wearing a digital wristwatch during an examination. Under the University's strict "unfair means" policy, the student's exam was cancelled. Despite clearing the papers later, the shadow of the incident continued to follow the student. This resulted in the family getting engaged in a relentless legal crusade, losing in the High Court and the Supreme Court, dismissing their Review and Curative petitions.

As per the latest media report by Verdictum, the student's father appeared in person, alleging a conspiracy involving "polluted counsels" and "fabricated documents". He also argued that the Bar Council of India failed to investigate his claims of fraud by legal representatives who allegedly withdrew the petitions without consent.

After considering the matter, the Court observed,

"We are conscious of the fact that Ramchandra Medical College and Research Institute, Purur, Chennai, has not been called or heard at this stage. It is so only to avoid them to be burdened with litigation expenses, especially when we are not passing an order of irreversible adverse impact on the functioning of the college. So, all that we observe is that Petition No. 2, for that matter, even his father, Dr. ***, Petition No. 1, to tender an unconditional apology to the university along with an application for expunsion of the adverse marks said to have been recorded in the marksheet of MBBS degree. We request the medical college to consider such a representation with utmost sympathy and with an endeavour to save the professional career of a young doctor. The amendments in favour of the petitioners, it shall be highly appreciated if a favourable order is passed at the earliest and preferably within one month from the date of submission of the representation." While refusing to reopen the merits of the original 2017 disqualification or the dismissed curative petition, the Court pivoted toward a humanitarian solution. The Court observed that the sheer duration of the struggle- a nine-year block on a medical career- had become a punishment far exceeding the gravity of the original offence.

The Court did not entertain further litigation against legal professionals or the university and directed the petitioners to offer an unconditional apology to the institution. Also, the Court requested the University to act with "utmost sympathy" to expunge the adverse remarks, prioritising the future of young professionals over the technicalities of past misconduct.

"However, it seems to us that the first petitioner, as well as his son, have suffered enough on account of the misdemeanours committed by Petitioner No. 2 while he was appearing in the examination held on 23rd February 2017. The multiple rounds of unsuccessful litigation, coupled with the fact that Petition No. 2 has not been able to seek admission to higher specialised courses for almost nine years, is a more than sufficient punishment having regard to the nature of the misdemeanours attributed to him, his son, attributed to the second petitioner. If his professional career as a doctor is permanently blocked, which is bound to happen if there are adverse marks in his degree issued by the medical college, such a punishment will become too harsh and disproportionate to the proven misconduct," ordered the Court. With this observation, the Court disposed of the matter.

Madras HC relief for SC medico denied government quota

Madras HC relief for SC medico denied government quota

Affirmative action is not exception or bounty, but is constitutional right of student concerned, says Justice Chakravarthy

Differing with the submission, Justice Chakravarthy said, “I find force in the case of the petitioner that even though she comes within the government quota seats in the Private Medical College, she has wrongly been denied the seat.”(Express illustration)

R Sivakumar

Updated on:

09 Jan 2026, 8:28 am

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has come to the rescue of an Arunthathiyar (SC-A) MBBS student, who was given admission under the management quota though eligible for government quota, by ordering the state government to bear the excess amount of fees over and above the government quota.

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the orders recently on a petition filed by S Malarvizhi, of Palaiyapalayam village in Namakkal district, currently pursuing MBBS course at the Karpaga Vinayaga Medical College in Madhurantagam.

The petitioner scored 455 marks out of 720 in NEET and was eligible for admission under the government quota seat under SC-General category. However, she was given admission under the management quota during 2024-25. Seeking to quash the merit list as less meritorious candidates were given government quota seats, she moved the HC.

Representing the petitioner, advocate N G R Prasad, assisted by advocate Parveen Banu, submitted that the Selection Committee has committed the mistake of considering her only for SC-A quota and not under SC-General for which she was very much eligible.

He said the TN Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Scheduled Castes) Act, 2009, and Clause 18 (6) of the admission prospectus provided for considering the candidate under the SC-General category also but such benefit was denied.

However, standing counsel for the Selection Committee, advocate Sneha, submitted that as per the relevant Act and rules, an SC-A candidate can be considered for admission under the SC-General category only if there are no seats available in the former and when the petitioner was considered for admission, there were BDS seat vacancies under the SC-A category.

Differing with the submission, Justice Chakravarthy said, “I find force in the case of the petitioner that even though she comes within the government quota seats in the Private Medical College, she has wrongly been denied the seat.”

He said reservation is not a bounty but a right. “Even assuming that the procedure that is adopted by the respondents is right, now the law is very well-settled that the reservation or positive discrimination/affirmative action is not an exception or a bounty that is conferred on the student concerned but is a valuable constitutional right ensuring equality and merit,” he said.

Justice Chakravarthy also said the relevant Act, rules and the 2010 G.O. provide for consideration of SC-A candidates under the SC-General category too.

Declaring the non-selection of the petitioner to the government quota seat as “illegal”, he ordered the student to pay only the government quota fees and directed the respondent authorities to pay the difference of fees amount above the government quota amount of Rs 4.35 lakh per year and reimburse the difference in fees already paid.

The judge made it clear that the order of payment of difference in fee amount shall not preclude the petitioner from availing of scholarships or other benefits meant for SC-A students.

Madras HC says heirs of temporary staff not eligible for compassionate jobs It observed that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a special scheme and not a constitutional scheme.

Madras HC says heirs of temporary staff not eligible for compassionate jobs It observed that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a special scheme and not a constitutional scheme.

Madras High Court 

Express News Service Updated on:  14 Dec 2025, 9:11 am 

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has set aside an order of the central administrative tribunal (CAT) which had ordered the Southern Railway to pass appropriate orders on the application of the legal heir of a deceased temporary worker for a job under compassionate grounds.

A division bench of justice SM Subramaniam and C Kumarappan held that the scheme of the Union government for compassionate appointments does not provide for appointment to the legal heir of a temporary worker.

It allowed the appeal filed by the Southern Railway challenging the April 21, 2022 order of the CAT passed on the petition filed by D Marimuthu, whose father, a casual labourer, died on harness, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.

The bench noted Clause 2 (B) Note-II of the scheme of Central government for compassionate appointments defines the eligibility of only the legal heir of “Government Servant” appointed on regular basis and not those working on daily wages.

Advertisement “The scheme itself is not applicable to casual labourers, therefore, the CAT cannot expand the scope of the scheme so as to provide a government job which is in violation of the constitutional principles and would infringe the rights of numerous eligible meritorious candidates, who are all longing to secure public employment by participating in open competitive process,” the bench said in the order.

It observed that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a special scheme and not a constitutional scheme. Such appointment is a concession and can never be claimed as an absolute right.

Marimuthu’s father joined the Southern Railway as a casual labourer on April 11, 1973 and his temporary status was confirmed on October 1, 1974.

He died on October 20, 1987. After a lapse of 16 years, he applied for compassionate appointment. It was rejected on the ground that the legal heirs of casual labourers are not eligible. He approached the CAT which directed Southern Railway to consider it; again, the application was rejected. He filed another petition and the CAT passed the order to check the family conditions and decide on the application. This order was challenged in the high court.

HC: No fresh probe on retd staff if rules forbid

HC: No fresh probe on retd staff if rules forbid 

Vasantha.Kumar@timesofindia.com 15.12.2025

Bengaluru : If the service rules pertaining to an organisation or entity don't permit, a de novo (fresh) inquiry against a retired employee cannot be held, ruled the Dharwad bench of the high court. Justice M Nagaprasanna made this observation while allowing the petition filed by Bahubali, a resident of Yallapur, Uttara Kannada district. The petitioner, chief executive officer/manager of the local Vikas Urban Cooperative Bank, was removed from service on June 30, 2018. Insubordination, revealing customers' secrets, causing disturbance during working hours, and other charges were levelled against him. He challenged the same before Registrar of Cooperative Societies and was unsuccessful as his plea was rejected on Jan 3, 2020. He then moved Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. On Aug 24, 2023, the tribunal ruled in his favour. 

However, the bank's management had reserved the liberty to hold a fresh inquiry against Bahubali if their service rules permitted the same. Challenging the said portion of the tribunal's order, Bahubali approached the high court, contending that he retired from service on May 31, 2020, and that the bank's service rules don't permit a fresh inquiry after an employee's retirement. On the other hand, the bank claimed that Bahubali indicated he was ready for settlement, and the bank was also willing for the same, yet he continued with the litigation. 

However, after perusing the materials on record and the Supreme Court's judgment in the Anant R Kulkarni case, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the apex court held that a de novo inquiry against a retired employee is impermissible in law unless the service rules so permit. Upon perusal of the bank's service rules, no liberty is reserved to the employer to conduct a de novo inquiry or any inquiry against a retired employee. If no inquiry can be held against a retired employee, the tribunal ought not to have reserved liberty to the bank to hold a de novo inquiry. That portion of the order is admittedly contrary to law. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed, the judge observed while allowing the petition.

SC: Employment on compassionate ground no ladder for promotion

SC: Employment on compassionate ground no ladder for promotion

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesofindia.com 15.12.2025

New Delhi : In an important ruling, Supreme Court has said that a person employed on compassionate grounds to alleviate family difficulties because of death of a parent in harness cannot seek appointment to higher posts merely because they have the requisite qualifications for the same.

 A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan on Friday reversed a Madras high court judgment directing Tami Nadu govt to promote two persons initially appointed as sweepers on compassionate grounds, due to death of their fathers, as Junior Assistants as they had the requisite qualifications for that post at the time of their appointment in 2007 and 2012. 

Both had approached HC in 2015. The bench said employment is provided on compassionate grounds to the eligible kin of an employee who dies in harness to enable the family of the deceased to tide over difficult times. “Such appointment which is arising out of exceptional circumstances cannot be used as a ladder to climb up in seniority by claiming a higher post merely on the basis that he/ she is eligible for such post,” it said. 

Writing the judgment, Justice Bindal said once the dependent of a deceased employee is offered employment on a compassionate basis, their right stands exercised. “Thereafter, no question arises for seeking appointment to a higher post. Otherwise, it would be a case of ‘endless compassion’,” he said. 

The bench said compassionate appointment is a relief against financial hardship caused by the sudden and unforeseen loss of the earning member of a family, and employment to the kin of the deceased is provided under such circumstances to ensure that the family members do not face impoverishment.

Supreme Court orders nationwide audit of private universities after Amity University harasses student for changing her name

Supreme Court orders nationwide audit of private universities after Amity University harasses student for changing her name 

The student claimed that university officials harassed her, barred her from attending classes and even taunted her over her religion.

Supreme Court. 27.11.2025

Ritwik Choudhury Published on: 26 Nov 2025, 6:14 pm 4 min read Follow Us The Supreme Court recently directed the Union government, all States and Union Territories, and the University Grants Commission (UGC) to disclose how private universities across the country were established, regulated and monitored [Ayesha Jain vs. Amity University, Noida & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and NV Anjaria said it was necessary, in the larger public interest, to examine how private universities were created, the statutory framework under which they function and the benefits granted to them by governments.

It directed all governments to file comprehensive affidavits detailing the background, legal basis, and financial or administrative benefits extended to private universities, including land allotments and preferential treatment.

The Court also sought information on who actually controls and manages these institutions, and how their governing bodies are constituted.

Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and NV Anjaria The Bench was hearing a petition by 23-year-old student, one Ayesha Jain, who approached the Court after Amity University allegedly refused to change her name in its rolls despite her furnishing all legal documents. She claimed that university officials harassed her, barred her from attending classes and even taunted her for changing her name to a muslim name.

Her petition detailed a series of complaints made to the UGC and the Ministry of Education, alleging that despite their intervention, the university refused to take corrective action.

The petition also accused Amity of misusing its authority and said that she lost a year of studies because of its conduct.

The controversy dates back to 2021, when the petitioner changed her name from Khushi Jain to Ayesha Jain and published it in the Gazette of India. In 2023, she completed a certificate course at Amity Finishing School under her new name and later joined Amity Business School for an MBA (Entrepreneurship) programme in 2024. However, the university allegedly refused to update her records, preventing her from attending classes and sitting for exams.

After multiple unanswered representations and complaints, Jain approached the Supreme Court in mid-2025, accusing the university of arbitrariness and discrimination.

During earlier hearings, the Court had expressed strong disapproval of the university’s conduct. On October 9, it directed Amity’s chairman and vice-chancellor to personally explain their position.

When the matter was next heard on October 14, the Court remarked that the university had made a “mockery” of its orders after it attempted to tender ₹1 lakh as compensation. It then directed the presence of Dr. Atul Chauhan, President of the Ritnand Balved Education Foundation (which runs Amity Universities), and the Vice-Chancellor at the next hearing.

When the matter came up again on November 20, both officials were present before the Court and submitted their affidavits. However, instead of concluding the matter, the Bench expanded its scope significantly, observing that the issues involved in the case carried wider implications for governance and regulation of private higher education in India.

It emphasised that it wished to examine how private universities came into existence, what statutory provisions or notifications enabled their creation, and what benefits they receive from governments.

“The issues have now come before this Court, which the present coram has also deliberated in detail, in the larger public interest, it is deemed appropriate to examine the aspects relating to the creation/establishment/setting-up of all private Universities, either under the State Governments/Union Territories or the Central Government, and connected concerns,” it noted.

The Court then directed the Centre and all State and Union Territory administrations to disclose the legal basis under which each private, non-government or deemed university was established. The Court also sought complete information on the benefits granted to these institutions, including land allotments, statutory relaxations, preferential treatment and any financial or administrative concessions.

It further sought full details of the organisations and individuals who run such institutions, including the composition and selection process of their governing bodies.

“Full details of the concerned personnel connected with the establishment/management of such Universities shall be placed on record,” it said.

The UGC was also asked to explain its regulatory authority over private universities and the actual mechanism it follows to ensure compliance with statutory and policy requirements.

“The affidavit by the UGC shall cover what the statute/policy mandates as also the actual mechanism to monitor/oversee compliance by the institutions,” the Court said.

The order also called for disclosures on admissions policies, recruitment of faculty, checks on compliance with legal obligations, whether institutions claiming to operate on a “no profit, no loss” basis are doing so in reality, grievance redressal systems for students and faculty, and whether minimum statutory salaries are being paid.

The Court made the responsibility for these disclosures explicit.

“Responsibility for every disclosure and its correctness shall rest with the deponent concerned,” the Court said.

It underscored that any attempt to suppress or misrepresent facts would be viewed sternly.

“If there is any attempt to withhold, suppress, misrepresent or mis-state facts in the affidavits called for, this Court will be compelled to adopt a strict view,” the Bench said.

To ensure accountability at the highest level, the Court directed that the affidavits must be personally affirmed by the Cabinet Secretary of India, Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, and the Chairman of the UGC, without any delegation.

The matter is slated for further hearing on January 8, 2026 when the Court is likely to examine the disclosures in detail.

The petitioner was represented by advocates Mohd Fuzail Khan and Shisba Chawla.

The respondents were represented by advocates Amitesh Kumar, Priti Kumari, Pankaj Kumar Ray, Abhinav Singh, Shashank Shekhar Singh, Parmanand Gaur, Vibhav Mishra and Megha Gaur.

SC castigates NMC on stipend issue

SC castigates NMC on stipend issue 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 04.11.2025

With National Medical Commission (NMC) failing to ensure that all private medical colleges and deemed universities pay stipend to MBBS interns, Supreme Court (SC) directed the Union health secretary to ensure that NMC collects details of charges imposed by these institutions and the stipend they pay. SC, in an order last week, said

it expected the commission “to wake up from slumber” and directed it to file a comprehensive compliance affidavit within two weeks. Over two years after SC said non-payment of stipend to MBBS interns was akin to bonded labour, not only has NMC failed to ensure payment, it has failed to even produce a list of medical colleges with details of how much they paid as stipend or penalise colleges not paying stipend, as it has been threatening to do. I

n July, NMC had issued a public notice directing colleges to submit the complete course-wise fee structure and details of stipend payment to MBBS interns/junior residents/senior residents etc, tuition fees, hostel charges, caution deposits and all miscellaneous charges. NMC had threatened to act against the colleges, including issuing show-cause notices, imposing financial penalties, withdrawing course recognition and suspending admissions, if they failed to comply. 

A few days before the July 11 public notice, NMC had issued another notice, pushing the onus of addressing grievances of medical students onto colleges, universities and directorates of medical education at the state level. Before the sudden move to shift responsibility and the U-turn soon after, NMC had issued notices to colleges thrice in 2024, threatening action. However, with no action being taken, colleges clearly have not taken the threats seriously. SC observed that NMC “seems to be dragging its feet without having any serious concern.”

Law Colleges Can’t Bar Students From Exams Over Attendance Shortage:

Law Colleges Can’t Bar Students From Exams Over Attendance Shortage: HC 9 Yrs After Death By Suicide Of Student, Court Says Norms Can’t Be So Stringent 

Abhinav.Garg@timesofindia.com  04.11.2025

New Delhi : Nine years after an Amity Law School student died by suicide after being barred from taking semester exams because of attendance shortage, Delhi High Court ruled that no law college or university can stop students from sitting for tests on this ground. Referring to the death of Sushant Rohilla and the "stark realities that have come to the surface," a bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma said it was "strongly of the view that attendance norms for education in general, and legal education in particular, cannot be made so stringent” that it causes mental trauma and death. 

It directed the Bar Council of India to re-evaluate the mandatory attendance norms and also ordered long-term reforms on mental well-being. "Sushant Rohilla has now left a permanent and indelible mark in the legal education space," the bench said, disposing of a suo motu petition by Supreme Court that was transferred to the high court. 

Rohilla, a third-year student, was allegedly barred from sitting for the semester exams because he did not have the requisite attendance. He left behind a note that said he felt like a failure and did not wish to live. Criminal proceedings against Amity Law School by Rohilla's family ended last year when both parties signed an out-of-court settlement. In its 122-page order, the high court passed a series of directions for law institutes. "... No student enrolled in any recognised law college, university, or institution in India shall be detained from taking examinations or be prevented from further academic pursuits or career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance," it said. 

No law college, university or institution should be permitted to set attendance norms over and above the minimum percentage prescribed by the BCI, the bench added. It also directed all BCI-recognised law colleges and universities to implement measures, such as a weekly notification of attendance of students on an online portal or a mobile app, monthly notice to guardians on attendance shortage, and extra physical or online classes for students who do not fulfil the minimum attendance norms. 

"If at the end of a semester, a student still does not qualify the prescribed attendance norms, the college or university cannot bar the student from taking the examination," the court said. Lack of attendance can be penalised by reducing the grade in the final result, it said. 

The court said even if attendance was not the only factor in Rohilla’s death, but just a contributing factor, still the loss of the life of a young boy could not have come at the behest of such norms. "There are several other cases of suicide by students over the years which have been connected to mandatory attendance requirements, mental health crises arising from the pressure to meet such requirements, and other related issues," the court said.

Honest public servants should be protected from ‘unwarranted frivolous prosecution’, says court

Honest public servants should be protected from ‘unwarranted frivolous prosecution’, says court

COURTS STRESS ON SHIELD FOR THE HONEST, CENSURE FLAWED  PROBES

 Vineet.Upadhyay@timesofindia.com 07.10.2025

New Delhi : Observing that courts must protect honest public servants from “unwarranted frivolous prosecution”, a court acquitted one Ashutosh Vasant, a former director of a PSU, in a corruption case. There are officers who give their life and soul to build the institutions they work for, and therefore, such a lopsided approach needs to be discouraged, Special Judge Sunena Sharma stated on Sept 25. 

The court said it appeared that CBI wanted us to see a ghost where there was none and Vasant, when he was at the peak of his career, fell prey to unfulfilled ambitions of some of his disgruntled colleagues who started considering him as a stumbling block to their career ambitions. “Though the case is ending up in acquittal, the damage suffered by the accused on account of the allegations raised in this case is enormous, and unfortunately, in this entire process, the career of the accused got stalled, jeopardised and ruined,” said the court. In 2019, CBI booked Railtel director Vasant and two firms for alleged misconduct in officials’ travel to the United States in 2012. Railtel, a public sector company, runs a nationwide broadband, telecom, and multimedia network to modernise train control operation and safety systems of Indian Railways. According to the prosecution, Vasant travelled by economy class and raised a bill for business class. He allegedly did not produce any journey documents to hide the cheating committed by him in the purchase of tickets. 

The prosecution alleged that on the recommendation of Vasant and two other officials, Railtel selected the consortium of two companies—United Telecom Limited and Infinera — which were alleged to be non-compliant vendors, for the tender of dense wave division multiplexing technology. The judge did not find any cogent or credible evidence on record to support the prosecution case that the accused received Rs 2,06,500 in cash as wrongful gain or pecuniary advantage from a travel agency as a refund of the residual amount of his business class ticket and caused a corresponding loss to the govt exchequer. 

The court said a mere suspicion or an erroneous administrative decision (act or omission) taken in good faith cannot be transformed into a corruption charge in the absence of clear evidence of any pecuniary advantage. Highlighting that undoubtedly, a “zero tolerance” policy against corruption is the need of the hour to uphold ethical governance, the court said any investigation or trial should not start with a preconceived notion that all public servants are corrupt or dishonest

Madras HC refuses to order college to readmit student held in drug case

Madras HC refuses to order college to readmit student held in drug case

The orders were passed recently on a petition filed by P Pradeep, a third year LLB student of the Central Law College, Salem.

He was arrested in a criminal case registered under NDPS Act, 1985, on September 10, 2024, and was released on bail on October 14, 2024.

Express News Service

Updated on:

30 Sep 2025, 8:22 am

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has refused to order a private law college to readmit a student who was dismissed after being arrested in a drug case. However, the court quashed the termination order, as it was passed without issuing notice to the student before taking the decision to dismiss him, and directed the college to initiate fresh proceedings.

The orders were passed recently on a petition filed by P Pradeep, a third year LLB student of the Central Law College, Salem. He was arrested in a criminal case registered under NDPS Act, 1985, on September 10, 2024, and was released on bail on October 14, 2024.

The college administration passed an order on December 2, 2024, dismissing him from the college and sent his transfer certificate and other original certificates to him.

Pradeep filed a plea against the dismissal and contended that he was not issued notice before deciding to dismiss him; and this amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. He prayed for the court to quash the order and direct the college to readmit him.

Justice Kumarappan observed that the principles of natural justice were not followed and so quashed the impugned order. He directed the college to pass a fresh order after following due procedures in four weeks. Until final decision is taken, the petitioner is not entitled to enter the college except for inquiry, the order said.

Kalol college regains 150 MBBS seats after conditional approval

Kalol college regains 150 MBBS seats after conditional approval 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK 27.09.2025

Ahmedabad : The Swaminarayan Medical College in Kalol, which recently faced cancellation of its admissions, has been granted conditional approval for 150 MBBS seats. The move comes after the National Medical Commission (NMC) earlier declared seats at several medical colleges across the country, including the Kalol college, as “zero”, citing serious deficiencies. The college management had challenged NMC’s decision in court. After hearing the matter, the court directed reconsideration of the case, paving the way for temporary relief. 

Acting on the directions, authorities have now restored 150 MBBS seats to the institute, but only on strict conditions. According to officials, the NMC inspection flagged multiple shortcomings in infrastructure, faculty strength and clinical facilities at the Kalol-based institute. The conditional approval requires the management to rectify all deficiencies within the next three months. Failure to comply with the stipulated timeline could once again put the college’s recognition at risk. This decision has provided relief to hundreds of aspiring medical students, as the sudden withdrawal of recognition left their future uncertain. With approval restored, the admission process at Swaminarayan Medical College can proceed for the new academic session.

HC: Conduct add’l mop-up counselling for NEET-SS

HC: Conduct add’l mop-up counselling for NEET-SS 

TIMES NEWS NETWORK  19.09.2025

Chennai : Madras high court has directed the director general of health services and the medical counselling committee to conduct additional mopup counselling for NEET-SS 2024-25 to include the unfilled super-specialty seats in Tamil Nadu and complete the process within four weeks. 

Justice G K Ilanthiriayan issued the order following a plea by three PG doctors who wanted to pursue super-specialty courses of their choice but were denied due to the nonconduct of mop-up counselling. Representing the petitioners, senior advocate P H Arvindh Pandian submitted that the failure of the counselling committee to conduct mop-up counselling for NEET-SS 202425 has left a large number of super-specialty seats vacant, despite there being willing, eligible, and meritorious candidates available to fill them. 

The denial of a mop-up counselling round results in the arbitrary and unjustified non-utilization of valuable public and private medical education resources, particularly in high-demand specialties and prestigious institutions like the Madras Medical College, Stanley Medical College, and Madurai Medical College.

 “The authorities are under a statutory and administrative obligation under the PG Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2019, to conduct counselling for all super specialty seats in a manner that ensures maximum seat utilization. The current approach defeats this objective,” he added.