Kerala HC recommends govt pleader's promotion
The HC made the recommendation to promote Parvathy as the senior government pleader while it was considering a petition filed by the wife of an educational officer and their daughter seeking to disburse Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) to them.
In the interim order issued on June 11, Justice D K Singh said, 'Parvathy Kottol, the government pleader, who may be designated as senior government pleader as she has completed more than 12 years of practice, and the government has not yet designated her as senior government pleader, for which the necessary decision is to be taken by the government.'
The petition was filed on March 22, and in the last hearing, which was on June 11, Parvathy had sought time to file an objection to the petition.
The court granted three weeks and made the recommendation. The petitioner had sought a directive to the deputy director of general education, Alappuzha, to issue the non-liability certificate (NLC) of the petitioners to the treasury officer so as to release the DCRG due to them.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Allahabad HC dismisses pleas challenging govt order on merger of primary schools
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed petitions challenging a state government order that directed steps to be taken for the merger of government primary schools. The court had clubbed two petitions filed over the issue and reserved its order on Friday after completion of arguments. The petitions were filed against the government's June 16 order, issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Shiksha Department, directing merger of government schools under the supervision and control of the basic shiksha adhikaris (BSAs). The petitioners had also challenged a June 24 follow-up order, issuing a list of 105 schools for the purpose of merger. 'It is essential to add a word with regard to the National Education Policy, 2020, which includes various issues including the pairing of the schools. The policy in itself is laudible and prescriptions have been given with regard to the steps to be taken to ensure that education is imparted at the initial level to all the citizens and the children of the country. There being no material to the contrary in respect of guidelines of pairing in the policy of 2020, which can be said to be arbitrary or in violation of Article 21A of the Constitution and finding the impugned Government Orders to be in furtherance of the said objective, no interference is called for. Present petitions lack merit and are accordingly dismissed,' read the judgment passed by Justice Pankaj Bhatia. The bench added, 'The obligation cast upon the State shall be scrupulously followed and the State is bound to ensure that no child is left out because of any action taken by the State. It will be the duty of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to ensure that no child is left out for being educated and all steps as are necessary shall be taken as and when required in accordance with law.' In the order, the court observed that it was important to notice that the Central government had issued the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, prescribing various measures in the interest of students and for improving the infrastructure of primary schools. Various government orders have been issued, forming committees for implementation of the guidelines issued in the NEP 2020, the bench said. The court noted, 'Although not cited or argued by either of the parties, Rule 4(3) has some seminal importance as the local authority has been saddled with a responsibility of identifying a neighbourhood school where the children can be admitted and such information is to be made public; the school as referred would be a school as defined under Section 2(n) of the RTE Act, thus, on a conjoint reading of Rule 4(1), Rule 4(2) and Rule 4(3), what transpires is that it is the duty of the State Government to establish schools as far as practical at a distance which is closest to the habitation, and if the same is not possible, to ensure that the children are provided facilities such as transportation etc., and for identification of a school which may be available in the neighbourhood in case the State Government cannot establish school, which would also include school other than the school established by the Government as is the mandate of Section 2(n) read with Section 12 of the RTE Act. Any other interpretation of Rule 4(1) would do violation to the statutory rule keeping in view the considerations of a large State such as the State of Uttar Pradesh with regard to availability of land and other resources and keeping in view the fiscal health of the State concerned.' It added, 'Thus, on a complete analysis of Rule 4(1), Rule 4(2) & Rule 4(3) read conjointly, it is clear that the State Government is bound to establish school on the nearest possible place from a habitation and in the absence thereof, it is obliged to ensure transportation facilities etc., and in conjunction thereof identifying the neighbourhood schools, whether they are government schools or otherwise.'
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
'Bail rule, jail exception' principle forgotten in recent past, says CJI Gavai
CJI Gavai NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India B R Gavai lamented that in the recent past, the principle of "bail is the rule, and jail is the exception" has been forgotten. Though judicial pronouncements over the decades have integrated this norm, it has not been implemented in true spirit in recent years, he said. Delivering the Justice V R Krishna Iyer Memorial Law Lecture in Kochi on Sunday, the CJI said he tried to reestablish the principle while granting bail in various cases, paving the way for high courts and lower courts to follow suit. "I am happy to state that I had the opportunity in the last year, 2024, to reiterate this legal principle in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha, Manish Sisodia, and Kavita vs ED," Justice Gavai said. Justice Iyer's contribution was immense in protecting the rights of marginalised communities, he said. The SC in recent years passed a series of orders to protect the rights of undertrial prisoners and held that delay in trial and long incarceration were grounds to grant bail even in serious offences under the PMLA and the UAPA, A, despite stringent bail conditions under the special laws. It opened the gate for bail to accused in money launder- ing and unlawful activities cases. The CJI also recalled Justice Iyer's strong opposition to undertrials being kept in jail for long periods without trial. In an important ruling in Aug last year, SC had held that the conventional idea of 'bail is the rule, jail is an exception' should be applicable not only to IPC offences but also to other offences for which special statutes have been enacted, such as UAPA, if the conditions prescribed under that law are fulfilled. SC in its various orders had appealed to HCs and lower courts to be liberal in granting bail and asked them not to hesitate in granting the relief in serious offences also if a case is made out for bail.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Delhi HC nixes Celebi's plea against Centre's curbs
Representative image NEW DELHI: There are "compelling national security considerations" that led the Centre to revoke security clearances of a Turkish-owned entity for handling airport-related operations, Delhi high court said on Monday, upholding the move. It dismissed Celebi Airport Services Private Ltd's plea challenging the aviation watchdog BCAS's decision to revoke its security clearance, noting that "once national security considerations are found to exist, it was not for the court to 'second guess' the same". Bureau of Civil Aviation Safety (BCAS) on May 15 revoked the security clearance, days after Turkey backed Pakistan and condemned India's strikes on terror camps in the neighbouring country. Justice Sachin Datta also pointed out that "ground handling services at airports offer deep access to airside operations, aircraft, cargo, passenger information systems, and security zones. Such unbridled access to vital installations and infrastructure naturally elevates the need for strict security vetting for operators and their foreign affiliations. This is particularly true in the wake of contemporary challenges faced by the country in the security domain, and the escalations/incidents witnessed in the recent past, with geopolitical factors at play". While the firm argued it was not even heard and the move was arbitrary, the HC found "compelling national security considerations involved" after the govt furnished material in a sealed cover for the court. "While it would not be appropriate for this court to make a verbatim reference to the relevant information/inputs, suffice it to say, that there is a necessity to eliminate the possibility of espionage and/or dual use of logistics capabilities which would be highly detrimental to the security of the country, especially in the event of an external conflict," the HC noted. Celebi Airport Services India Pvt Ltd and Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt Ltd oversee ground handling and cargo terminal functions at various airports in the country. HC rejected the contention of the petitioners on the denial of principles of natural justice. 'No doubt, the principles of natural justice are sacrosanct; however, it is a compelling constitutional truth that security of the realm is the pre-condition for enjoyment of all other rights,' the court said in its 94-page verdict. It said the authorities are justified in taking prompt and definitive action to completely obviate the possibility of the country's civil aviation and national security being compromised. The HC said it was also 'acutely conscious' that the state must not be allowed to invoke national security as a ruse to deny procedural due process. 'Any action taken by the Director General of the Bureau of Civil Aviation for the purpose of revocation of any security clearance on the basis of inputs received from the law enforcement/intelligence agency cannot be considered to be an act inconsistent with the Aircraft Rules 2023, contrary to what has been contended on behalf of the petitioners,' it said. Celebi said the Centre's move was against the principles of natural justice and in violation of the procedure under the Aircraft Security Rules. Celebi, operating in the Indian aviation sector for over 15 years and employing over 10,000 people, offers its services at nine airports.
