TRB tamilnau

[pinfinit]

pl let me know that the recurtment bodie under state govt are under RTI act
are they bound to answer on recrutment details
eg Teachers recrutment Board of tamilnadu

[pinfinit]

well said subbu! hats up to u!!!!! in fact a long battle fought for temporary(Gust) lectures by eminent Senior counsel Mrs Nalini Chidambaram - Better Half of Honorable home minister P.Chidambaram - here i am giving link to the judgement and date - 06/12/2010 , by The honorable Mr M.Y.Eqbal Chief justice and Mr. T.S.sivagnanam you can view the content under judgement webpage (The Judgment Information System) select pet/res tab in that type p.suseela enter 06-12-2010 and 06-12-2010 submit and fellow u will get it . go through and comment pl - (Posting of mail ids is against RTI India - Forum Rules - hence deleted) - pl do it ASAP - TRB now conducting interviews on false experience certificates and based on Ph.D awarded with much urgency to get inducted in the posting alone and grab the high pay( this what happening when u take no of doctorates awarded in universities and affiliated colleges - in this role of so called supervisors also their.

[pinfinit]

Sponsorer

UGC when allows Universities or agencies again the standards will become ? , it has to conduct NET with much care and refinement, otherwise once again the standards in higher education in "INDIA" will become ?

[pinfinit]

40. In the instant case, as noticed above, in order to improve the quality of education, the first respondent namely., the Central Government set up a Review Committee under the Chairmanship of Bhalchandra Mungekar and other Experts to review the Scheme of National Eligibility Test. In its final report the Committee took a view that the NET/SLET test should be retained as a compulsory requirement for appointment of Lecturers at Under Graduate and Post Graduate levels irrespective of candidates possessing the degree of M.Phil or Ph.D. The report of the Mungekar Committee was considered by the UGC in its meeting held on 21.07.2008 and resolved that NET/SLET or Ph.D. shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment of Lecturers in universities, colleges and other institutions of higher learning. The government had also considered the report of the Mungekar Committee in the light of the recommendation of the UGC and issued a direction on 12.11.2008 under Section 20 of the UGC Act giving instructions to prepare appropriate regulations keeping in mind the national purpose of maintaining the standard of higher education prescribing that NET/SLET shall be compulsory for all persons to be appointed to teaching post of Lecturer or Assistant Professor in universities and other institutions imparting higher education. It was also suggested that only persons who posses the degree of Ph.D. after having been enrolled/admitted to a program notified by the UGC that too after it has fully satisfied itself on the basis of the expert opinion that such Ph.D. degree has been obtained in conformity with the procedure and standards prescribed by it only could be exempted. The government in exercise of the power under the Act also directed that the Commission shall not give any blanket or general exemption from NET/SLET to any university unless Ph.D. awarded by a university or an institution needs the same level of rigor in terms of standards and quality as laid down by the UGC for each discipline. In compliance with the above policy directive of the Central Government dated 12.11.2008 the UGC notified regulations by 3rd Amendment called 3rd Amendment Regulations, 2009, which was notified on 11.07.2009, which is impugned herein. It was categorically specified that qualifying NET/SLET would be the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in universities and colleges with exemption to be granted only to persons who have obtained Ph.D. degree in accordance with the standard and rigor prescribed under the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Colleges) Regulations, 2009.

[pinfinit]

41. It is, therefore, evidently clear that the directive of the Central Government dated 12.11.2008 was to ensure the national purpose inasmuch as raising the standards of higher education reflected through the quality of teaching should be approached through induction of talent into the academic profession at the initial stage. However, contrary to instructions and directions of the Central Government the Commission in its meeting held on 12.3.2010 proposed to exempt certain candidates from the requirement of NET qualification for the purpose of appointment of Lecturers/Assistant Professors and sent to the Government for approval, but the same was not approved by the Central Government.

[pinfinit]

49. In the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we have no hesitation in holding that the principles of Legitimate Expectation will have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As noticed above, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources felt the need to introduce NET as compulsory for the purpose of appointment of teaching post in order to upgrade the standard of teaching. For that purpose, Expert Committees were constituted consisting of eminent experts and academicians, who recommended that NET/SLET should be retained as compulsory requirement for appointment of lecturers irrespective of the candidates possessing degree in M.Phil or Ph.D. After considering the report of Prof.Mungekar Committee, the University Grants Commission was directed to frame regulations to serve the national purpose of maintaining standards of higher education. But, the University Grants Commission, without considering the object and purpose of raising the standard of education, and without considering the global scenario, although framed regulations, but, tried to give certain relaxation to the candidates for appearing in NET/SLET examination. In our view, therefore, the Central Government has rightly refused to approve the decision of the University Grants Commission. Hence, the impugned regulation and the decision of the Central Government cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be held to be illegal, arbitrary or whimsical, rather the decision is rational and based on public interest and also national policy to upgrade the standards of education in the country.
50. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the writ petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.