Recruitment of assistant professors: Punjab moves Supreme Court, seeks modification of July 14 orders
The state govt prayed that 1,158 assistant professors and librarians should be allowed to continue for the time being in the interest of students in govt colleges. The Punjab govt is also exploring other possible legal remedies, higher education minister Harjot Singh Bains stated in a social media post on Monday.
The assistant professors and librarians were mounting pressure on the state govt to file a review petition in the apex court against its order setting aside the high court order, which upheld their recruitment.
The Supreme Court (SC) bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the order issued by the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana high court, observed that the advertisement inviting applications for the posts was issued on Oct 19, 2021, and on the same day, the department of higher education wrote to the Punjab Public Service Commission to return its requisition sent to the commission for these posts.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
10 Best Mattresses by Consumer Reports (Here's What You May Not Want to Miss)
QuestionHero
Learn More
Undo
The SC bench in its 56-page order delivered on July 14 further mentioned that the commission on Nov 16, 2021, wrote to the department disagreeing with the idea of taking the posts out of its purview since the action required at the end of the govt was not followed. However, without any further action, the examinations were conducted between Nov 20 and 22, 2021.
It was after the selection and appointments were made that retrospectively, on March 26, 2022, an amendment was made taking out these posts from the purview of the commission.
The single bench of the Punjab and Haryana high court had rightly observed that the retrospective amendment to the 1955 Regulations, which was made much after the conclusion of the recruitment process, was nothing but a response to the writ petitions filed by the appellants, mentioned the SC.
Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution, inter alia, states that the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts, the SC observed and set aside the order dated Sept 23, 2024, passed by the division bench of the Punjab and Haryana high court.
The SC quashed the entire recruitment process and directed the state to initiate the recruitment process as per the 2018 UGC Regulations.
Earlier, a double bench of the Punjab and Haryana high court on Sept 23, 2024, reversed the order by the single bench and allowed the recruitment to continue following which the professors received the appointment letters.
MSID:: 123236167 413 |
Stay updated with the latest local news from your
city
on
Times of India
(TOI). Check upcoming
bank holidays
,
public holidays
, and current
gold rates
and
silver prices
in your area.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Who is May Mailman, the Harvard-educated lawyer at the center of Trump's campaign against America's top universities?
May Mailman's role in challenging elite US universities during Trump's term. (Photo courtesy: Facebook) May Mailman, a Harvard-trained lawyer, has been the key figure behind President Trump's aggressive campaign targeting America's top universities, according to reporting by The New York Times. Through executive orders, the strategic use of federal funding, and civil rights investigations, Mailman helped design a broad approach aimed at pressuring elite institutions to alter their policies on admissions, diversity, and gender. Although Mailman departed the White House in August 2025, as reported by CBS News, she continues to serve as a special government employee, overseeing ongoing negotiations with universities such as Harvard, according to The New York Times. Driving policy to reshape higher education Mailman was instrumental in drafting executive orders early in Trump's second term that redefined the federal government's stance on sex, limiting recognition to only two genders and rolling back policies that promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion, as reported by The New York Times. These changes forced universities like the University of Pennsylvania to ban transgender girls and women from participating in women's sports. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like If You Find These Bugs in Bauru, Do Something Immediately Undo The New York Times further notes that Mailman was 'credited as an animating force behind a strategy that has intimidated independent institutions and undercut years of medical and scientific research.' She helped lead an effort to challenge what the administration viewed as liberal bias in admissions practices, particularly focusing on the role of race in college admissions. Using federal funding and civil rights investigations as leverage According to The New York Times, a key element of Mailman's strategy involved leveraging federal funding to pressure universities. Institutions faced the risk of losing significant research grants or student visa approvals if they did not align with the administration's demands. In addition, the administration opened civil rights investigations into admissions policies at several leading universities. The Times reports that Mailman personally closed a $221 million settlement with Columbia University—the largest settlement the administration has secured to date—after such investigations. Negotiations with elite universities While many universities chose to quietly comply, Harvard has been a rare holdout, willing to fight back in court, The New York Times reports. Mailman led the White House's negotiations with Harvard, which included contentious issues such as how race factored into admissions and disputes over patent investigations. The Times quotes Harvard officials describing these investigations as 'yet another retaliatory effort targeting Harvard for defending its rights and freedom. ' Talks with Harvard appeared to be progressing, with the university signalling openness to spending $500 million to reach a resolution, though new investigations and pressures continued, as noted by The New York Times. Impact on academic freedom and campus culture The New York Times highlights concerns from faculty and student groups that the administration's approach threatens academic freedom and free speech on campuses. Mailman's policies, which have included attempts to dictate hiring practices, admissions, and curriculum content, have been described by some as trampling on First Amendment rights. Adam Goldstein, vice president of strategic initiatives at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, was quoted by The New York Times saying, 'If you normalize the use of federal power like this, then academic freedom is just a memory and universities become political footballs and no longer useful instruments in the search for truth.' Mailman's pragmatism amid controversy Despite her aggressive tactics, The New York Times reports that Mailman is respected within government circles for her efficiency and ability to balance competing interests. University officials who have negotiated with her privately have praised her pragmatic approach, noting her skill in navigating complex discussions between the administration and academic institutions. Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff, praised Mailman as 'one of the most indispensable, gifted and dedicated staffers and lawyers in the Trump administration since Day 1,' according to The New York Times. Continuing influence after White House departure Though Mailman officially left her White House post in August 2025, The New York Times reports that she remains involved as a special government employee to 'tie up loose ends' on policy matters. CBS News also reported that Mailman plans to start a government affairs firm but will not represent clients related to her administration projects, including ongoing negotiations with Harvard. Mailman herself said, as quoted by The New York Times, 'We don't want to run these universities. We want some sweeping changes that set things in the right trajectory.' TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Lok Sabha approves updated I-T bill, to ease compliance burden
Lok Sabha NEW DELHI: Lok Sabha on Monday approved the Income Tax Bill 2025 - a key reform aimed at revamping the decades old income tax law for individuals and companies, making it simple for taxpayers and easing the compliance burden. Earlier, FM Nirmala Sitharaman introduced the revised and updated version of the I-T bill in Parliament, incorporating recommendations of the Select committee of Parliament. On Aug 8, FM had withdrawn the earlier bill, which was introduced in the house on Feb 13. The Select committee of the Lok Sabha headed by BJP's Baijayant Panda had examined the I-T Bill 2025 and adopted the report on the draft legislation last month. The parliamentary panel had suggested 285 recommendations on the draft legislation, aimed at simplifying and modernising the country's tax laws. "Almost all of the recommendations of the Select Committee have been accepted by govt. In addition, suggestions have been received from stakeholders about changes that would convey the proposed legal meaning more accurately," according to the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Income Tax (No.2) Bill. " For TDS correction statements, the time period for filing statements has been reduced to two years from six years in the Income-tax Act, 1961. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like listen now on spotify samy Listen Now Undo I-T department sources said this is expected to reduce the grievances of deductees significantly. Flexibility has been provided in the new I-T bill for allowing refund claims in cases where the return is not filed on time, a move which is expected to come as a major relief for taxpayers. Tax experts said the reforms are expected to ease compliance for individuals, companies, MSMEs and promote a stable, predictable and transparent tax system, key for sustaining domestic consumption, attracting foreign investment and supporting growth. "The withdrawal of the earlier I-T bill and the introduction of a revised version demonstrates govt's responsiveness to stakeholder feedback and the Select Parliamentary committee's recommendations," said Gouri Puri, partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas and Co. Puri said the original draft raised concerns about ambiguities, particularly regarding house property taxation, pension deductions, and the refund process for delayed filings. "The revised bill addresses these gaps to simplify interpretation, reduce disputes and promote fairness," said Puri. The new I-T Bill also aims to eliminate redundant and repetitive provisions for better navigation, reorganising sections logically to facilitate case of reference. It has opted for simplified language to make the law more accessible and has removed obsolete and redundant provisions for greater clarity. Mandatory investment and deposit of deemed accumulated income of 15% of regular income in specified modes has been done away with. The word "profession" has been added after "business" in clause 187 to enable professionals with total receipts exceeding Rs 50 crore in a year the facility of prescribed electronic modes of payment. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays , public holidays , current gold rate and silver price .
News18
35 minutes ago
- News18
'Unfortunate Ego Clash': Madras HC Refuses To Intervene In 'Father-Son Dispute' Over PMK Meet
Last Updated: The court stressed that the legality of the meeting under the PMK's internal rules could only be examined in civil proceedings, not through a writ petition under Article 226 The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Pattali Makkal Katchi general secretary seeking to halt an upcoming general body meeting convened by the party's president, citing lack of public law elements and describing it as a 'private dispute" between father and son. The petitioner, who serves as PMK's general secretary, approached the Madras High Court to restrain the DGP from permitting the meeting. He alleged that the party's current president had illegally convened the meeting, as his tenure had ended on May 28. In its order, the court observed that the matter stemmed from 'an unfortunate ego clash" between father and son, leading to a split within PMK ranks. The single judge bench stressed that the legality of the meeting under the party's internal rules could only be examined in civil proceedings, not through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. According to the petitioner, the PMK was founded in 1989 by Dr S Ramadoss, who appointed his son as president on May 28, 2022, for a three-year term. With that term now expired, the petitioner claimed steps were being taken to appoint a new president effective May 29, with Dr Ramadoss nominated for the post pending ratification by the competent party body. During the morning session, Justice N Anand Venkatesh noted that both the founder and the current president were father and son who had worked together for decades. In an attempt to mediate, the court directed both to appear — Dr Ramadoss via video conference citing ill health and the current president in person, in chambers at 5.30 pm. Despite this effort, the founder declined to engage in any dialogue with his son, prompting the court to hear the matter on merits. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the meeting was unlawful and convened without involving the founder, while the additional public prosecutor representing the police stated that no permission was required for a closed-door political meeting. He assured the court that any law and order issue would be handled appropriately. The current president's senior counsel challenged the maintainability of the writ petition, claiming it was a purely private party dispute and that the meeting was called in accordance with the by-laws. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in S Shobha v Muthoot Finance Ltd, 2025, the court reiterated that writ jurisdiction applies primarily to state entities, statutory bodies, or private bodies performing public duties. It set out the parameters for when a writ could be issued, stressing the need for a public law element. 'In the case at hand, none of the parameters fixed by the apex court are satisfied," the court held, adding that 'police permission is not required for a closed-door meeting of a political party". Any law and order problem arising from the meeting, the court said, will be handled by the police. 'If at all any law and order problem is created, the police will handle the same and take action against the concerned persons in accordance with law," the court said. Finding no public duty component or statutory obligation involved, the HC dismissed the writ petition, closing connected miscellaneous petitions and imposing no costs. 'This court does not find any ground to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed," it said in its order dated August 8. About the Author Sukriti Mishra Sukriti Mishra, a Lawbeat correspondent, graduated in 2022 and worked as a trainee journalist for 4 months, after which she picked up on the nuances of reporting well. She extensively covers courts in Delhi. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : family dispute madras high court view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
