Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Court proceedings on EC case on 18-03-2015
Dear PUTA members

I would like to share with you the court proceedings that happened yesterday (18-03-2015).

As you may be aware of the fact that the case challenging the legality of VC’s appointment and PUTA’s EC case have been combined.

When the cases came up for hearing around 2:20pm, the University lawyer pleaded for vacating the stay on EC. The judge denied it and said he preferred to hear on ‘quo warranto’ case. Our senior advocate Ms. Vaigai expressed her displeasure over non-filing of counter affidavit by the MHRD. The judge directed the Registrar of the court to issue notice to ‘Attorney General of India’. When the judge was about to close the session, the University lawyer pleaded the judge to take up some agenda items, which are related to students. The judge asked our senior advocate whether we have any objection in allowing these items to be implemented. Our advocate fairly said ‘we do not come in the way of students getting their degrees, therefore agenda related to students can be allowed’. Likewise, in consultation with the petitioner (General Secretary of PUTA), Advocate Vaigai gave PUTA’s consent for two more items.
The items, which are permitted by the judge to be implemented are as follows:
I. Students matters -- University: 1. Award of degrees to students, 2. Instructions of MHRD, 3. Resolutions for the students of DDE, 4. Making of gold medals for rank holders for the 24th convocation, 5. Reservation in students admission, 6. Introduction of E-Learning, 7. Introduction of new courses, 8. Establishment of Community Colleges
II. Students matters – Affiliated Colleges: Admission into several courses and some other issues related to affiliated colleges.
III. Foreign Collaboration and Establishment of Centers.
In brief
1. Stay on EC is not vacated.
2. The University (represented by the Registrar in charge) and Dr. Chandra Krishnamurthy filed their counters in Quo Warranto case (Prof. Ramadoss’ case). The advocate received the counters just an hour before the case was taken up for hearing.
3. The MHRD also filed counter (dated 17-12-2014), which was received by the advocate after the hearing was over.
Another important incident that took place in the court hall, is an advocate appeared for some ‘Joint Employees Action Committee’. The judge asked for the case details and the advocate replied ‘the case was filed but not yet numbered’. At this moment I cannot comment anything on this case as I did not see the affidavit.

The details given above are just for your information and based on my personal understanding of the proceedings. I was present in the court hall when the cases came up for hearing.

Thanking you
Dastagiri Reddy
General Secretary
Dr. N. Dastagiri Reddy,
General Secretary, PUTA
Dept. of Chemistry

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)