Karnataka HC cancels appointment of Meera B.K. as acting V-C to Maharani Cluster University
Justice R. Nataraj passed the order while partly allowing a petition filed by T.M. Manjunath, who is the senior-most dean/director in the university. The petitioner had questioned the March 28, 2025, order of the Governor in appointing Ms. Meera as acting V-C contrary to Section 16(2) of the act.
'When a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner or not at all. When Section 16(2) of the Act, 2000, mandates that whenever a vacancy in the office of V-C remains unfilled, it is the senior-most dean of the university who may be appointed to act as the V-C. The Chancellor cannot arrogate to himself the power to appoint anyone else to act as the V-C,' the court observed.
Pointing out that though Ms. Meera was earlier appointed as a director of the university, she did not take the charge as the post of director but remained as a professor in the Department of Zoology, the court said that she was not even a director to be considered for holding the post of acting V-C as per the law.
While refusing to accept the contentions of the chancellor and the State government that the senior most woman professor was selected as an acting V-C as the varsity is primarily catering to the girl students, the court said that this 'contention does not stand to reason as the Special Secretary to the Governor/Chancellor when calling for the list of senior most deans/directors of the university did not restrict it to women candidates.'
'This apart, there is nothing on record to establish that the Maharani Cluster University is a women's university, where the V-C should be a woman as in the case of Akkamahadevi University,' the court pointed out.
Though the court declined to direct the chancellor to consider only the petitioner [Mr. Manjunath] as acting V-C, as it is the discretion of the chancellor to make an appointment to the post, it gave liberty to the Chancellor to consider the petitioner, if he is found eligible, to the post while appointing acting V-C as per Section 16(2) of the act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
SP MP demands rollback of school merger
Lucknow: Samajwadi Party MP from Machhlishahr Priya Saroj has written to the Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan demanding review of the policy of 'integration of schools' in Uttar Pradesh and cancellation of the merger process. In her letter, Saroj said that the policy of integration of schools was being followed in Uttar Pradesh, which seems to be against the basic spirit of the Right to Education Act (RTE Act). "Under RTE Act, there is a provision that every child between the age of 6 to 14 years should be provided free and compulsory education within one kilometre of the nearest primary school from residence. If no school is available within a radius of one kilometre, then it is the responsibility of the govt to ensure admission of the child in the nearest school," she said. She said the current policy of the UP govt was violating the spirit of the Act. "This is hindering access to school for many children, leading more dropouts. Jobs of 2.5 lakh teachers and school staff of UP are also at risk," she said.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Delhi govt.'s move to amend labour laws will strip lakhs of workers of their rights, say experts
Trade union leaders and experts have criticised the Delhi government's move to amend at least two labour laws as part of its 'Ease of Doing Business' policy, saying the amendments will strip lakhs of workers in the city of several rights. The first pertains to changing the applicability of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, to establishments with 10 or more employees. Currently, the Act, which includes several safeguards for employees, such as leaves, weekly holidays, and a month's notice for dismissal, is applicable even to establishments with one employee. The government is also planning to amend the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which protects workers in cases of lay-offs and closure of units employing 100 or more workers, by raising the minimum threshold of employees to 300. Directions were issued to senior officials at a review meeting on June 30, chaired by Lieutenant-Governor V.K. Saxena and attended by Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, to make these changes, said a source. However, the government is yet to release any official statement on the matter. 'No protection' Anurag Saxena, CITU general secretary (Delhi), said introducing a threshold in the law will leave employees working in smaller establishments without any protection. 'Right now, if a person working at a small bakery or garment shop is fired illegally, he or she can file a complaint under the Act. Once the minimum threshold is increased to 10, workers at thousands of establishments with fewer than 10 employees will be placed outside the ambit of the law and left without any protection,' he said. A senior Delhi government official said once the four Labour Codes, which were passed in Parliament in 2019 and 2020, are implemented, workers in smaller establishments will be provided with 'some level of protection'. However, Mr. Saxena said, 'The labour codes could provide protection to employees in case of wages, but there is no safeguard for workers at a small establishment who are fired illegally.' Concurrent List The government is also looking to make changes to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which applies to commercial units across the country, as labour is part of the Concurrent List, which includes subjects over which the Union and State governments share legislative responsibilities. Currently, the Act provides protection to workers in the event of retrenchment and closure of firms employing 100 workers or more, as prior permission is required from the government or notice is to be given for such actions. The Delhi government plans to amend the Act to cover only establishments employing 300 or more workers. Professor Surajit Mazumdar at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, said an employee's rights do not depend on the size of the establishment. 'As things stand, many labour laws meant to protect employees are not enforced properly. And now if you remove the workers from the ambit of the law itself, the workers won't be able to even fight for their rights,' he said. The threshold in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has already been raised to 300 by the Bharatiya Janata Party governments in Gujarat (2021) and Assam (2018). The same change has also been proposed in the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which is part of the four labour Codes, which have not been implemented amid resistance from labour unions across the country. Mr. Mazumdar said raising the threshold to 300 would be a way of introducing the labour Codes 'through the back door'. Gujarat had also amended the Gujarat Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2019 (the equivalent of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954) six years ago to cover units employing only 10 or more workers. 'The total number of employees in establishments with less than 10 workers in Delhi, who will be affected by the change in law, will be in the range of 7 to 20 lakh and the actual figure will be closer to 15 lakh,' said Mr. Mazumdar. He used the data from the Economic Census, 2013-14 and Delhi Economic Survey 2023-24 to arrive at the conclusion. Brijesh Goyal, chairman of Chamber of Trade & Industry, said the figure will be around 18-20 lakh workers, and Sucheta De, AICCTU national vice president, said the figure will be around 15-17 lakh workers. 'The entire practice is to keep most workers outside the scope of any legal protections,' Ms. De said. When reached out, the CM's office did not offer any comment.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Delhi HC rejects bail of suspected Isis member in arms case
NEW DELHI: Delhi HC has rejected the bail plea of a suspected Isis member accused of procuring arms and ammunition for the proscribed outfit and using social media to promote its objectives. In a recent order, a bench of justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld a trial court detention order, stating it was not mechanical in nature. HC said accused Mohd Rizwan Ashraf could not be released due to the ongoing investigation, as releasing him and others at a crucial stage would impede the probe. "This court is satisfied that the trial court applied its mind to the grounds set forth. The trial court categorically observed the investigation progressed substantially during remand extensions granted by it and the investigation was not stagnant. Order of the trial court extended custody not as a matter of routine but based on credible material outlining the investigative steps requiring completion," the bench observed. Ashraf was arrested by NIA in 2023 under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) provisions. He challenged various orders of the trial court extending his custody, including on Feb 24, 2024, when his judicial custody was extended by 25 days. On the same day, the trial court dismissed his plea for default bail. Ashraf's counsel submitted the orders were passed by the trial court in a mechanical and perfunctory manner and did not indicate any individual assessment of his role. He argued NIA failed to demonstrate why Ashraf's continued detention was necessary for probe. However, HC said three accused persons, including Ashraf, were active ISIS and they were propagating the ideology of the organisation and trying to recruit youth for its objectives. "At the time when the remand orders were being considered, material was being unearthed to establish that the accused, including the appellant (Ashraf), were conducting recce at various Indian cities including, but not limited to, Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, and Surat for terrorist activities," it pointed out, adding conspiracy was also being hatched in other countries. "A money trail from Maldives was also being investigated. Material on record indicates that investigation was also underway to find out about other associates of the accused," HC noted.
