Eric Oudenot

Inquiry focuses on recruitment practices for BS-01 to BS-04 positions within the PSQCA, after a complaint by an individual alleged procedural violations Read: https://lnkd.in/dhbEiytz

Gauhati High Court Mandates B.Ed. Qualification for Vice-Principal Recruitment: “NCTE Guidelines for Teaching Posts Automatically Apply as Vice-Principal is a Teaching Role” Court’s Decision: The Gauhati High Court held that the omission of the B.Ed./B.T. qualification for recruitment to the post of Vice-Principal under Rule 13 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized Schools) Service Rules, 2018, violates the mandatory qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The court emphasized that the Vice-Principal is a teaching post, and NCTE guidelines must be strictly adhered to for both teaching and promotional positions. Facts: The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized) Service Rules, 2003, initially regulated recruitment qualifications for teaching positions, including the Vice-Principal, but did not mandate a B.Ed./B.T. qualification for the post of Vice-Principal. In 2012, amendments to the 2003 Rules mandated B.Ed./B.T. qualifications for Graduate and Post-Graduate Teachers but not for Vice-Principals. The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized Schools) Service Rules, 2018, repealed the 2003 Rules and retained the omission of the B.Ed. qualification for Vice-Principals. The petitioners challenged this omission, arguing that it contravened NCTE guidelines. The State justified the omission as necessary to allow promotion of teachers recruited prior to 2012, who did not possess B.Ed. qualifications. Issues: Whether the omission of the B.Ed. qualification for Vice-Principal recruitment under the 2018 Rules contravenes the mandatory requirements prescribed by the NCTE. Whether the State’s justification for the omission—to promote teachers recruited before 2012—holds merit in light of the NCTE’s mandatory standards. Court’s Reasoning: The court emphasized that the Vice-Principal is a teaching post under Rule 2(z) and Rule 3 of the 2018 Rules. As a result, NCTE guidelines mandating the B.Ed./B.T. qualification for teaching roles automatically apply to the post. The omission of the B.Ed. requirement was deemed arbitrary and violative of the NCTE’s statutory prescriptions. The court noted that while administrative considerations, such as accommodating pre-2012 teachers, may justify transitional measures, they cannot override mandatory statutory requirements. The State failed to establish any classification or distinction that could justify exempting pre-2012 teachers from the B.Ed. requirement for Vice-Principals. Conclusion: The court struck down the omission of the B.Ed./B.T. qualification for Vice-Principal recruitment under Rule 13 of the 2018 Rules. It directed the State to amend the rules to include the B.Ed. requirement, ensuring compliance with NCTE guidelines. #GauhatiHighCourt #EducationLaw #NCTEGuidelines #TeacherQualifications #VicePrincipalRecruitment #BEdQualification #AssamEducation #LegalAnalysis #CourtDecision #EducationalStandards #RecruitmentRules #HigherEducationLaw

Salman case accused taken for medical test Full Article Link >>> https://lnkd.in/gSmUr22m The two accused men involved in the firing incident outside Salman Khan ‘s Bandra house on Sunday morning were spotted at Mumbai’s GT Hospital early this afternoon for a medical examination . Visuals from the hospital showed the two accused with black bags on their heads, being led into the hospital for their checkup. According […] . . Latest IND . . . . #trendingnews #newstrending #trendingtopicnews #lifestyle #business #news #healthylifestyle #smallbusiness #supportsmallbusiness #lifestyleblogger #luxurylifestyle #businessowner #businesswoman #smallbusinessowner #businessnews

In Criminal Cases, Principle Of Proof Is Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Contrary To Procedure Followed The Departmental Enquiry: Telangana HC https://lnkd.in/gV7qksEr

Govt issues advisory to OTT platforms on depiction of narcotic drugs & substance abuse https://lnkd.in/darMwVyP #MIB #OTT #ParliamentaryCommitteeonIT #InformationandBroadcasting #narcoticdrugs #substanceabuse Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

Mode Of Examination U/S 33(2) Of POCSO Will Be Applicable To Victims Attaining Majority; Can’t Be Cross-Examined Directly: Kerala HC https://lnkd.in/gwiqAn9z

List of Important Articles of the Indian Constitution for NDA and CDS Exam Check now: https://lnkd.in/ggrrBCuf #IndianConstitution #ndaexampreparation #cdsexamprapration

Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jammu registered a Case FIR No. 05/2024 P/S ACB-J under section 5 (1) (d) r/w 5 (2) of J&K PC Act Samvat 2006 and 120-B RPC against officers/officials of PWD (R&B) Division-III Jammu and the beneficiary. The instant case FIR was registered on the outcome of a Verification was conducted by this Bureau on the basis of complaint alleging therein that the contractor Avikash Choudhary in league with concerned Engineers of PWD (R&B) Division-III Jammu and others manipulated to get the contract of upgradation of road from Lohri Chak to Chakrali via Sohagini in block Marh under NABARD by putting the lowest rates for the allotment of said contract but on ground all clauses of the tender were violated and work has not been executed thereby caused loss to Government exchequer etc. The verification conducted revealed that while executing the work of execution of road from Lohri Chak to Chakrali via Sohagini in Block Marh, an item viz laying of 50 mm Premix Bituminous Macadam (BM) base course was not kept in DPR whereas 19250 sqm quantity of 50mm Premix Bituminous Macadam base course was advertised vide advertisement dated 29.05.2018 in the rate list @ 430/sqm just to facilitate the contractor Avikash Choudhary in getting allotment of contract. The officers/officials of PWD (R&B) Division-III Jammu prepared the advertised rate list by incorporating 50mm premix Bituminous Macadam base course which was not kept in DPR. It surfaced during the course of verification that L1 Bidder namely contractor Avikash Choudhary quoted the rate of Rs. 4.30/sqm for Bitumious Macadam (BM) against advertised rate of Rs. 430/sqm and Rs. 0.50/kg for reinforcement of RCC work against Rs.60/kg. The rates quoted by the contractor were abnormally low and unworkable. The contractor did not execute these abnormally low rate items at site especially Bituminous Macadam (BM) whose allotted amount was Rs. 82,775/- against advertised amount of Rs. 82,77,500/-. It surfaced from the advertised rates that the rate quoted for 25mm OGPC (Open Graded Premix Carpet) was Rs. 270/sqm and for 50mm Bituminous Macadam was Rs. 430/sqm, but the rate quoted by contractor as well as in the allotment is Rs. 4.30/sqm for 50mm Bituminous Macadam (BM) and Rs. 275/sqm for 25 mm OGPC. It further surfaced during the course of verification that then Executive Engineer, Bikram Singh and then AEE Gurcharan Singh too recommended for post facto sanction for an additional cost of Rs. 86,88,925/- against the original allotment of Rs. 1,82,89,075/-. Subsequently then Chief Engineer issued the post facto allotment/approval for already executed excess work amounting Rs. 86,88,925/- by violating codal formalities, rather than inviting tender for the same.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition, Emphasizes Dermatological Examination for Tattoo Compliance in Police Recruitment; Affirms Tribunal’s Directive to Assess Functional Fitness under Clause 13.2 of Recruitment Guidelines Court’s Decision The Delhi High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s directive, which ordered a re-medical examination for a candidate applying to the Delhi Police. This examination by a dermatologist was to assess the candidate’s fitness for the position in light of Clause 13.2 of the recruitment advertisement, which prohibits tattoos on the right forearm for constable applicants. Facts The case concerned an aspirant for the Delhi Police Constable position who had been directed by the Tribunal to undergo a re-medical examination by a dermatologist. This assessment aimed to determine whether the candidate had any tattoo on the right forearm, in accordance with recruitment guidelines. Issues The main issue was whether the Tribunal’s directive for a re-medical examination by a dermatologist was justified, given that the recruitment criteria explicitly required the absence of any tattoo on the right forearm for applicants. Court’s Reasoning The court reasoned that there was no valid reason to challenge the Tribunal’s directive for a dermatological examination, emphasizing the non-intrusive nature of this procedure. It noted that verifying the absence of a tattoo aligns with the essential eligibility criteria and recruitment integrity. Conclusion The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Tribunal’s directive for a dermatologist to assess the candidate’s compliance with Clause 13.2 was appropriate. The court also highlighted that the dermatologist should consider the Deepak Yadav judgment, ensuring consistency in such assessments. #DelhiHighCourt #PoliceRecruitment #DermatologyAssessment #TattooPolicy #EmploymentLaw #RecruitmentGuidelines #JudicialReview #LegalUpdate #AdministrativeTribunal #IndianJudiciary