eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

Shivani Short Hand Typing Center Morena mob:-8871426000

created May 14th, 01:59 by Shivani shorthand


0


Rating

386 words
34 completed
00:00
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Rules of 2004 are not sustainable as the same are in contravention to the Rules of 1990 which are already governing the service conditions of the petitioners. The appointment of Teachers as per Rules of 1990 were to be made by the Government through PSC, however, in the
Rules of 2004, the Societies are empowered to recruit the Teachers. The Rules of 2004 would create anomaly, inasmuch as, there would be two cadres of Teachers. One would work under the State Government and the other would be working under the Societies. The Teachers working under the Societies would not be entitled for the benefit of Pension and other dues. As per Rules of 1990, the channel of promotion to the post of Principal is available to the Professors, whereas, such benefit is not available in the Rules of 2004. The cadre of Teachers working against various posts as per the Rules of 1990 is declared as dying cadre. The Teachers working as per 1990 Rules shall be treated to be on deputation with the Society with no deputation
allowance. The reservation Policy of the State Government has not been made applicable in the Rules of 2004. Each College is now treated to be an independent Society and the post of Head of the Department (H.O.D) and Principal have become singular posts and, therefore, the reservation would not be applicable. Under the Rules of 1990, the post of Principal and Professors is transferable from one college to another college. However, as per the Rules of 2004, the transfer of a Teacher would not be permissible from one Society to another Society. Since the Rules of 1990 are framed under the Proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution, therefore, the Rules of 2004 which are framed in exercise of powers vested under the provisions of the Act
of 1973 would not override the Constitutional Rules. The petitioners have also challenged the advertisement dated 28.01.2005 and 11.02.2005 on the ground that if such appointments are made, they would not be treated as Government employees and their services would be governed by the Rules of 2004. It is, therefore, submitted that the Rules of 2004 are arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

saving score / loading statistics ...