Friday, February 25, 2022
Thursday, February 24, 2022
NO RESGIANTION IS ACCEPTED IN/AFTER ROUND-2 OF COUNSELLING.
Ref. U-12021/09/2021-MEC Dated: 23-02-2022
- NOTICE
Kind Attention of Candidates & institutes: It is for the information of all the candidates & institutes participating in UG /PG Counselling 2021-22. MCC is receiving several requests from the candidates regarding resignation of seat from allotted College/ institutes from their joined seats in 2nd round.
The timeline that has been published by MCC on official website of resignation of Round seats as on intramcc portal was as follows:
UG Course: 04:00 PM of 15th February 2022 (as per notice dated 05.02.2022)
PG Course: 04:00 P.M of 3rd February, 2022 (as per notice dated 19.01.2022)
However, it is re-iterated to all the participating candidates that as per the directions mentioned in the matter of Dar-u-slam Educational trust & ors. vs. MCI & ors. (W.P. no. 267 of 2017) & Snigda Leo vs. MCC & ORs (W.P.no. 820 of 2021) no resignation are allowed once the candidate is a part of round 2 of Counselling conducted by MCC. The Colleges taking resignation offline are advised to abstain from doing so as such vacant seats allowing through offline resignation will not be included in further rounds of Counselling.
NO RESGIANTION IS ACCEPTED IN/AFTER ROUND-2 OF COUNSELLING.
Notice posted on: 23-02-2022
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 14, 2022 To February 20, 2022
Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 14, 2022 To February 20, 2022: A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
MP High Court Upholds Decision To Consider Younger Son Of Deceased Employee For Compassionate Appointment
MP High Court Upholds Decision To Consider Younger Son Of Deceased Employee For Compassionate Appointment Despite Elder Son Serving In Army
21 Feb 2022 1:36 PM
The elder son lived separately with his wife and was not providing financial aid to the deceased's family.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently upheld the decision of a single bench wherein the Writ Court had directed the State to consider the younger son of a deceased government employee for compassionate appointment, despite his elder son serving in the Indian Army.
The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pranay Verma noted that the elder son, though was in regular employment, lived separately, had constituted his own family and was not in a position to provide financial aid to the deceased's family, i.e. deceased's wife and younger son.
"He is seized to be a member of the family of the deceased employee. In the family of a working son, his brother has no claim," the Bench remarked.
The Court was hearing a writ appeal preferred by the State against the order of the Writ Court, whereby it had directed the State Government to consider the case of the Petitioner (younger son of the deceased) for grant of compassionate appointment on merit, ignoring clause 4.1 of the policy dated 29.09.2014.
The facts of the case were that the deceased servant was working as peon in the office of the Collector, District Ujjain. He died due to cardiac arrest while in employment. His younger son (Petitioner) moved an application for compassionate appointment since he was dependent on his father's income and was eligible for the job by virtue of his educational qualifications. He also attached an affidavit of his elder brother with the application, wherein the elder brother had stated that he was serving in the Indian Army but was not in a position to support the family financially as he was living separately with his wife.
The Collector forwarded the application of the Petitioner to the General Administration Department (GAD) to seek directions. The GAD rejected the application citing Clause 4.1, which disqualifies a person seeking compassionate appointment, if any member of the deceased servant has a government job.
Aggrieved by the same, he filed a writ petition before the Court and the same was allowed on the grounds that employment in the Indian Army is tenure appointment. Moreover, the Writ Court had noted that the brother of the Petitioner, after joining the Indian Army, has been living separately and therefore, the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer for it.
Aggrieved by the said order, the State preferred an appeal.
The State submitted that since the brother of the Petitioner was serving in the Indian Army, he automatically became ineligible for compassionate appointment, pursuant to Clause 4.1. It was further submitted that the language of Clause 4.1 was absolutely clear and that no other interpretation ought to be given to it. It was also argued that even otherwise, the policy of compassionate appointment is only a policy framed by the Government, which has no statutory force, hence, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the State for providing employment.
The State relied on on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Court in the case of Prajesh v. State of M.P., wherein Clause 4.1 of the aforesaid policy had been examined and it was held that the dependent of the deceased's family is not entitled to a compassionate appointment if one of the family members is in Government Service, even if he is not supporting the other dependent. Therefore, the State argued, the order passed by Writ Court ran contrary to the aforesaid order and hence, was liable to be set aside.
Per contra, the Petitioner submitted that the Writ Court had rightly held that employment in the Indian Army is different from the service of State Government as well as Central Government. He argued that in the Indian Army, there is no uniform age of retirement at the age of 60 or 62 years. He stated that as per Clause 4.1, if any member is in employment in services of Corporation, Council and commission etc., only then would one of the dependents be ineligible to claim the compassionate appointment. Therefore, he argued, employment in the Armed forces was liable to be excluded as it cannot be compared with government service.
Even otherwise, he submitted, being an employee of the Indian Army, the brother of the Petitioner was being posted in various parts of the country and that he was having his own family to support. He was out from dependence of the deceased employee. Hence, he concluded that no interference was warranted and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
Scrutinizing the provision under Clause 4.1, the Court observed-
The language of this clause is very clear as it says that if any member of the family of the deceased Government employee is already in regular service, then other dependents shall not be eligible to claim compassionate appointments. The applicant shall submit an affidavit that no other family member is in employment. The Division Bench of this Court in case Prajesh Vs. State of M.P. has considered clause 4.1 of the policy and held that a brother who is living separately is also come under the definition of a member of the family, therefore, merely a member of the family of the deceased servant, who is in employment in government service or corporation or board, council or commission has started living separately, he cannot be excluded from the class under clause 4.1 of the policy. The Writ Court has considered the nature of employment in the Indian Army and held that it cannot be equated with regular services in the Government as well as Central Government, hence, the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered on merit ignoring clause 4.1 of the policy.
Considering the case at hand, the Court noted that the mother of the Petitioner had filed an affidavit to the effect that she was not getting any financial support from his first son because he was living elsewhere for the last 8 years with his family. Brother of the Petitioner had also given an affidavit, stating that he was living separately along with his wife. Examining the facts of the case, the Court opined-
Employment in the armed force cannot be compared with service in the state or central Government. His late father and brother used to look after his mother, hence his younger brother is entitled to get a compassionate appointment. By letter dated 10 November 2016 without verifying the aforesaid fact and conducting any enquiry, respondent No.1 has communicated its decision to the Collector in view of clause 4.1. of the policy, the writ petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment.
The Court then laid out a step-by-step procedure with respect to compassionate appointment and held that the son who is already in regular employment, constitutes his own family and thus, seizes to be a member of the family of the deceased employee-
As per clause 2.1. of the policy in question only wife and husband are treated dependent as the case may be on a government employee and they have first right to claim the compassionate appointment, in case wife or husband as the case may be is ineligible then he /she can nominate son or unmarried daughter. The nomination of a son who should be unemployed and not have any source of income, therefore, survival either wife or husband cannot nominate son who is already in employment. The son who is in employment is not entitled to claim a compassionate appointment. Son means who is not in employment. The son who is already in regular employment constitute his own family hence he is seized to be a member of the family of the deceased employee. In the family of a working son, his brother has no claim.
With the aforesaid observations, the Court decided not to interfere with the impugned order and further directed the authorities to comply with the said order within 60 days. The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title : GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT v. PREMSINGH
Citation:
COURT NEWS LIVE LAW
PC Act - Mere Acceptance Of Amount, Without Proof Of Bribe Demand, Will Not Establish Offence Under Section 7 : Supreme Court
21 Feb 2022 6:22 PM
Proof Of Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe By Public Servant Is Sine Quo Non For Establishing Offence U/Section 7 Prevention Of Corruption Act: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder, the bench comprising noted.
In this case, the accused, who was working as a Commercial Tax Officer, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The case of prosecution was that that on 24th February 2000, she demanded a bribe of Rs.3,000/- for issuing an assessment order. The conviction was upheld by the High Court.
In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that there is only witness to the alleged demand and acceptance. PW1 did not state that the appellant reiterated her demand at the time of trap and that the version of PW1 in his examination-in-chief about the demand made from time to time is an improvement, the court noted. Therefore, the bench concluded that the demand made by the accused has not been conclusively proved. The bench observed:
"The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act."
The bench noted the following observations made into the judgment in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, the court said:
"The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.""
Holding that the demand which is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established, the bench allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.
Headnotes
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13 - The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act - The Failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder [Referred to P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh (2015) 10 SCC 152]. (Para 7)
Case details: K. Shanthamma vs State of Telangana | CrA 261 OF 2022 | 21 Feb 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 192
Coram: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka
Counsel: Sr. Adv V. Mohana for appellant, Adv Bina Madhavan for respondent
'You Missed The Bus' : Supreme Court Refuses Relief To Student Who Lost Admission For Not Uploading OTP Within Time
'You Missed The Bus' : Supreme Court Refuses Relief To Student Who Lost Admission For Not Uploading OTP Within Time
21 Feb 2022 12:33 PM
The Supreme Court today dismissed a writ petition filed by a student who was aggrieved with the loss of his admission in the Mechanical Engineering course at Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute, Mumbai as he had failed to upload the One Time Password(OTP) within the stipulated time to confirm his admission.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant in their order said,
"Admittedly the petitioner failed to upload OTP for confirmation of the admission at the institution within the stipulated time. Admissions have already been concluded. No case for interference under Article 32 has been made out."
The petitioner in the instant case had relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Prince Jasbir Singh v Union of India & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 6983 of 2021) where the Court had directed IIT Bombay to accommodate a Dalit student who had missed out of the admission deadline due to inability to pay fees in time.
"It is a common practice amongst the aspirants of professional courses like engineering or medical students to secure an admission in an institute that offers a seat to them through other exams but as and when the admission rounds of other competitive entrance examination commences and progresses in due course, the students try to upgrade their choices by securing desired colleges. Even the education that is provided in the State run institutes like VJTI is of higher quality as well as affordable. It is thus following a general trend petitioner had secured a seat in a private institute with an intention to upgrade. Despite the upgradation in securing the seat, the petitioner was denied admission in the Respondent No. 3 Institute," the petition had stated.
Courtroom Exchange
When the matter was called for hearing, Advocate Pai Amit for the petitioner submitted that due to calamity in the family the petitioner had to rush to Udaipur and could not come back on time. He further added that the petitioner had deputed a representative to do the needful.
"The OTP was sent to the candidate's number. He could not be there and had to ask somebody else to put the one time password. But the message could not reach on time," counsel further added.
While expressing the inclination to dismiss the petition, Justice DY Chandrachud, the presiding judge of the bench said, "There are so many other students, if you missed the bus, then you missed the bus, what can we do."
Although the Counsel requested the bench to issue notice on the limited extent in case there is a vacant seat, the bench refused.
"No no we are not going to do that. There will be many other students", the bench said.
Accordingly, the bench while noting that admissions have already been concluded in their order said,
"Admittedly the petitioner failed to upload OTP for confirmation of the admission at the institution within the stipulated time. Admissions have already been concluded. No case for interference under Article 32 has been made out."
The petition was drawn by Advocates Siddharth Chapalgaonkar and Sumit Sonare and Shivali Chaoudhary filed by Advocate Pai Amit.
Case Title: Aaditya Santosh Shrivastava v. State of Maharashtra| WP 98/2022
'You Missed The Bus' : Supreme Court Refuses Relief To Student Who Lost Admission For Not Uploading OTP Within Time
'You Missed The Bus' : Supreme Court Refuses Relief To Student Who Lost Admission For Not Uploading OTP Within Time: The Supreme Court today dismissed a writ petition filed by a student who was aggrieved with the l
PC Act - Mere Acceptance Of Amount, Without Proof Of Bribe Demand, Will Not Establish Offence Under Section 7 : Supreme Court
PC Act - Mere Acceptance Of Amount, Without Proof Of Bribe Demand, Will Not Establish Offence Under Section 7 : Supreme Court: Proof Of Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe By Public Servant Is Sine Quo Non For Establishing Offence U/Section 7 Prevention Of Corruption Act: Supreme Court
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
கொலுசு அணிந்த சரஸ்வதி * நாகப்பட்டினம் மாவட்டம் கடலங்குடியில் உள்ள சிவன் கோவிலில் வளையல், கொலுசு அணிந்தபடி சரஸ்வதிதேவி காட்சியளிக்கிறாள். ச...
-
கட்சியிலிருந்து நேற்றே ஒதுங்கிவிட்டேன்! டி.டி.வி.தினகரன் தடாலடி பேட்டி vikatan news ராகினி ஆத்ம வெண்டி மு. படம்: ஸ்ரீநிவாசலு 'அ.த...
