UPSC to commence centenary celebrations from October 1
The decision in this regard was taken recently during a meeting held under the chairmanship of UPSC chairman Ajay Kumar, the statement said.
'Since its inception, UPSC has been a symbol of transparency, fairness and meritocracy, ensuring the selection of the most deserving candidates through a rigorous and impartial process for senior-level po-sitions in government services,' Kumar said.
As part of the celebrations, UPSC is planning to release a logo and a tagline symbolising the Commis-sion's service to the nation. Various new initiatives and reforms are also being planned to be launched during the centenary year.
'As we prepared the list of events, we also sought inputs and suggestions from our employees. It is our endeavour to make them an integral part of the centenary celebrations. We have received some truly valuable suggestions to work on,' Kumar said.
'The centenary celebrations give us an opportunity to look back at our legacy with pride, to introspect for improvement, and to look forward to making the country proud by deploying the best human re-sources in the nation-building process,' he said, adding that it is also an occasion to plan a roadmap for the next 100 years of glory for the UPSC.
Subsequent to the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919, and the recommendations of the Lee Commission (1924), the Public Service Commission was established in India on October 1, 1926.
Later named the Federal Public Service Commission (1937), it was renamed the Union Public Service Commission with the adoption of the Indian Constitution on January 26, 1950.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Supreme Court Seeks Government Response On Jammu And Kashmir Statehood Restoration Plea
The Supreme Court has issued a formal notice to the central government regarding a petition demanding the restoration of full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir within a specified timeframe. The bench, headed by Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, has scheduled the matter for hearing after two months while giving the Centre eight weeks to respond. The petition, filed through advocate Soyaib Qureshi on behalf of academician Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and social activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, argues that the prolonged Union Territory status undermines federalism, which constitutes a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners contend that successful peaceful assembly elections and general stability demonstrate that security concerns no longer justify the continued territorial status. During Thursday's proceedings, the applicants' counsel, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, referenced the Supreme Court's December 2023 ruling on Article 370's abrogation. He emphasized that the court had previously refrained from addressing statehood restoration only because the Solicitor General had assured that it would occur following elections. The petition seeks restoration within two months, though the petitioners expressed willingness to accept any reasonable timeline set by the court. However, the proceedings took a significant turn when the bench referenced the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, suggesting that ground realities must be considered in such decisions. Chief Justice Gavai noted that the court lacks comprehensive expertise in security matters and acknowledged that certain decisions fall within the government's prerogative to assess local conditions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly opposed the petition, characterizing it as non-maintainable and arguing that multiple considerations influence such decisions. He questioned the timing of raising this issue and requested the matter be postponed for eight weeks, indicating the government's reluctance to commit to immediate statehood restoration. The legal challenge emerges against the backdrop of significant constitutional changes implemented on August 5, 2019, when Parliament revoked Article 370's special status provisions and divided the former state into two Union Territories - Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The Supreme Court's Constitution bench validated this action in December 2023, describing it as the culmination of Kashmir's integration process with India while recording the Centre's commitment to eventual statehood restoration. Assembly elections were subsequently conducted in three phases between September and October 2024, resulting in a National Conference-Congress coalition government with Omar Abdullah assuming the chief minister's position. This democratic exercise fulfilled the court's directive for elections by September 2024. Recent political developments have intensified speculation about the Centre's intentions. Chief Minister Abdullah recently expressed optimism about positive developments for Jammu and Kashmir during Parliament's current monsoon session. He has actively lobbied various political party leaders, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, urging them to pressure the government for legislative action on statehood restoration. The Pahalgam incident, specifically referenced by the court, involved three terrorists who killed 25 tourists and a local operator on April 22. Security forces subsequently eliminated the attackers on July 28 in the Dachigam forest area. Intelligence confirmed the terrorists' Pakistani origins and their affiliation with Lashkar-e-Taiba. India's response included Operation Sindoor on May 7, targeting nine terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, reportedly eliminating over 100 militants. The operation escalated into a four-day conflict involving airstrikes on Pakistani military installations before hostilities ceased on May 10 following bilateral understanding. The court's reference to this attack underscores the complex security considerations that continue to influence policy decisions regarding Jammu and Kashmir's administrative status, even as democratic processes have been successfully restored and local governance established.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Former NITI Aayog VC Rajiv Kumar bats for removing restrictions on Chinese investments in India
NEW DELHI: Former NITI Aayog Vice Chairman Rajiv Kumar on Thursday pitched for the removal of restrictions on investments from China into India, saying it will boost domestic manufacturing and generate employment. Kumar, in an interview with PTI Videos, further said China has become a significant foreign investor in other countries, and India needs that investment. "So, I think the time has come to seriously consider permitting Chinese investments into India," he said. In the last few months, India and China have initiated a number of measures to repair the bilateral ties that had severely nosedived following the deadly clashes between the two militaries in June 2020. "And let me be forthright, I think it is time to remove Press Note 3 that regulates investment from neighbouring countries. The only neighbouring country which matters is, as you know, is China," Kumar said. Under Press Note 3 of 2020, the government has made its prior approval mandatory for foreign investments from countries that share land borders with India. These countries are China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal and Afghanistan. He further explained that investments from China will help produce things locally in India. "That is always better, because imports from China do not create employment in India. Imports do not create backwards linkages. So if you allow Chinese manufacturing investments, they will manufacture here, and they will produce, and maybe they can also export from India," Kumar noted.
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
‘Ground Reality Can't Be Ignored': Supreme Court Points To Pahalgam Horror In J&K Statehood Plea
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Union government to clarify its position on a series of applications seeking a time-bound restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir and emphasised that ground realities must be taken into account. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing petitions that argued the prolonged delay in restoring statehood is 'seriously impacting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and undermining the principle of federalism.' The Bench underscored the significance of the Pahalgam issue during the proceedings. The applicants contended that the absence of a clearly defined timeline for restoring statehood constitutes a breach of federalism, which they emphasised is an integral part of the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution. 'It has been 21 months since the Article 370 judgment. There has been no movement towards the restoration of statehood,' submitted senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, adding that the Constitution Bench had trusted the Union government when the Solicitor General assured it that statehood would be restored. On the other hand, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, questioning the maintainability of the applications, urged the apex court to consider the 'peculiar position' in Jammu and Kashmir and sought that the pleas be listed after eight weeks, saying this was not the 'correct stage' to consider the matter. 'The MAs (miscellaneous applications) are not maintainable. We had assured two things: the election would be held, and thereafter, the statehood. Your lordships are aware of the peculiar position emerging from this part of our country. There are several considerations,' said SG Mehta. 'I don't know why, at this stage, this issue is agitated, but list it after 8 weeks. I will take instructions. My prayer is for eight weeks because this particular stage is not the correct stage to muddy the water,' Mehta added. After hearing the submissions, the CJI Gavai-led Bench listed the matter after eight weeks. In 're: Article 370 of the Constitution' verdict, a 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had left open the question of whether the Parliament can extinguish the character of statehood by converting a state into one or more Union Territories, relying on an oral statement made on Centre's behalf that statehood would be restored to Jammu and Kashmir. In the course of the oral hearing, the Solicitor General, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, had submitted that the Union Home Ministry cannot give any exact timeframe and it would take "some time" for the restoration of statehood in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Gavai and Surya Kant, had ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take steps to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, constituted under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act, by September 30, 2024, and said that "restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible". It had upheld the status of Ladakh as a Union Territory under Article 3(a) read with Explanation I of the Constitution, which permits the formation of a Union Territory by separating a territory from any state. In May 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging its verdict, stating there was 'no error apparent on the face of the record' and refused to list the matter in open court.
