Ambedkar Jayanti row: Uttarakhand high court halts transfer of professor couple
DEHRADUN: Uttarakhand HC has ordered a stay on the transfer of a professor couple from Uttarkashi Degree College to Pithoragarh Degree College and paused the departmental investigation against them.
Dr Ramesh Singh and his wife Dr Vinita Singh, both associate professors at the same college, had filed a petition in the court saying Uttarkashi Degree College took retaliatory action against them for opposing the college's decision to change the date of
Ambedkar Jayanti
celebrations at the institute.
They said the higher education department had instructed colleges to remain open and celebrate Dr B R Ambedkar's birth anniversary on April 14. But acting principal Madhu Thapliyal rescheduled the celebration to April 12. Following the couple's objection, Thapliyal placed Singh on extended leave, citing "false sexual harassment allegations from two years ago".
The court fixed June 11 for the next hearing. tnn
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
13 hours ago
- Time of India
HC summons principal, undersecy in professor couple's transfer case
Dehradun: The Uttarakhand HC, while hearing a case related to the transfer of a professor couple from Uttarkashi Degree College to Baluwakot Degree College in Pithoragarh district, on Wednesday directed the college principal prof Suresh Mamgai, the undersecretary of the higher education department, and the investigating officer to appear before the court at 2 PM on June 19. The bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra also sought clarifications regarding possible contempt proceedings against the three. Earlier, the court had stayed the transfer orders and directed the investigating officer to submit a report on the petitioners' complaint. The petitioners, associate professor Dr Ramesh Singh and his wife Vinita Singh, also an associate professor, alleged that although the higher education department had instructed colleges to observe Ambedkar Jayanti on April 14, the principal held the event on April 12, to which they objected. They further alleged that the principal then compelled Dr Singh to go on extended leave, refering to two-year-old sexual harassment allegations without any formal complaint or FIR. Dr Singh challenged this action in the high court, which granted him relief. However, on April 16, the higher education department's undersecretary issued transfer orders for both Dr Singh and his wife, relocating them to Baluwakot Degree College in Pithoragarh—over 500 km away from their current posting.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
'Not a private builder': DDA moves Delhi HC against Rera order, calls project registration mandate ‘jurisdictional overreach'
New Delhi: In an unusual development, Delhi Development Authority has moved the high court against another statutory body, Rera. Questioning the real estate regulator's competence to order DDA to register the housing projects, the latter stated that it was not a real estate promoter like private builders, but an independent authority whose activities were covered under the DDA Act and related Nazul rules. Last month, a bench of Justice Sachin Dutta issued notice to Rera and the central ministry of housing and urban affairs, seeking their stand on the DDA's petition. The land owning agency, which also comes under the direct control of the Centre, challenged a provision in Rera which makes it mandatory for all developers, including govt authorities, to register their projects for sale with the respective regulators in the state. DDA termed it an "overreach of jurisdiction" and argued it had to move court "under extraordinary circumstances and for emergent reliefs in view of a palpably unconstitutional, illegal, unauthorised assumption of jurisdiction by Rera, thereby seeking to regulate the petitioner authority, when the latter is not only a creature of another statute, namely the Delhi Development Act, 1957, but also the very subject matter in respect of which the said assumption of jurisdiction has been exercised is regulated under the provisions of the Delhi Development Authority (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968, and Nazul Rules, 1981 framed under section 56 of the DDA Act, 1957. " Senior advocate Ramesh Singh and DDA counsel Vrinda Kapoor Dev argued that Rera authorities failed to recognise that DDA operated under a comprehensive constitutional and parliamentary mandate and was already subject to robust govt oversight, auditing mechanisms and accountability structures. Singh and Kapoor also contended that the Delhi Development Act, 1957 mandated DDA "to promote and secure the development of Delhi according to plan," establishing it as an "instrument of state policy rather than a commercial entity. " The plea said Rera required promoter details like name, address, type, registration and photographs, but DDA was created by a law of Parliament and "has a pivotal role in Delhi's development." While registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act requires details of past projects, status, delays, pending cases, land type and payment, the civic agency doesn't need to furnish authenticated copies of approvals and commencement certificates from a competent authority, as it is itself the "competent authority" and sanctions its own layout and plans, it added. Delhi Rera has maintained that those who are in real estate development, whether it is DDA or any other such organisations, must register projects with the regulatory authority, adding that it has powers to take action against them if they fail to do so. Recently, the real estate regulator also ordered DDA to register its super luxury project at Dwarka.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
DDA moves Delhi HC, says RERA cannot issue it directions
NEW DELHI: In an unusual development, Delhi Development Authority has moved the high court against another statutory body, Rera. Questioning the real estate regulator's competence to order DDA to register the housing projects, the latter stated that it was not a real estate promoter like private builders, but an independent authority whose activities were covered under the DDA Act and related Nazul rules. Last month, a bench of Justice Sachin Dutta issued notice to Rera and the central ministry of housing and urban affairs, seeking their stand on the DDA's petition. The land owning agency, which also comes under the direct control of the Centre, challenged a provision in Rera which makes it mandatory for all developers, including govt authorities, to register their projects for sale with the respective regulators in the state. DDA termed it an "overreach of jurisdiction" and argued it had to move court "under extraordinary circumstances and for emergent reliefs in view of a palpably unconstitutional, illegal, unauthorised assumption of jurisdiction by Rera, thereby seeking to regulate the petitioner authority, when the latter is not only a creature of another statute, namely the Delhi Development Act , 1957, but also the very subject matter in respect of which the said assumption of jurisdiction has been exercised is regulated under the provisions of the Delhi Development Authority (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968, and Nazul Rules, 1981 framed under section 56 of the DDA Act, 1957." Senior advocate Ramesh Singh and DDA counsel Vrinda Kapoor Dev argued that Rera authorities failed to recognise that DDA operated under a comprehensive constitutional and parliamentary mandate and was already subject to robust govt oversight, auditing mechanisms and accountability structures. Singh and Kapoor also contended that the Delhi Development Act, 1957 mandated DDA "to promote and secure the development of Delhi according to plan," establishing it as an "instrument of state policy rather than a commercial entity." The plea said Rera required promoter details like name, address, type, registration and photographs, but DDA was created by a law of Parliament and "has a pivotal role in Delhi's development." While registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act requires details of past projects, status, delays, pending cases, land type and payment, the civic agency doesn't need to furnish authenticated copies of approvals and commencement certificates from a competent authority, as it is itself the "competent authority" and sanctions its own layout and plans, it added. Delhi Rera has maintained that those who are in real estate development, whether it is DDA or any other such organisations, must register projects with the regulatory authority, adding that it has powers to take action against them if they fail to do so. Recently, the real estate regulator also ordered DDA to register its super luxury project at Dwarka.
