PaRCha - JNU - Letters to Administration - 2008 ID-66030
.
i er 1ty i arguing that in accordance with the directions of Honourable Supreme Court---a i n of I 0 point can be given to an OBC candidate with regard to the un-reserved candidates Thi · mean. that the 8C candidate can gel at the m st 10 marks less than an unre erved .
.., argunH.:nt that relaxation of upto I 0 marks can be provided for an ODC candidate ha come into ~-·u lation. I lowcver, it is purely a popular perception, that has no clear legal sanction, and which the . is circulating so a to serve it O\· n narrow interests. .
ro\ is ion of a ten marks relaxation being th upper limit for 08 candidates does not figure at all in the RD directive. As quoted above, Para X of the MIIRD directive only rates that each CEJ is authorized to fix .
-IT mark for 08 candidates such that it " institution may deem appt·opt'iate for maintaining the tandanls of education and at the same time ensuring that ufficient numbet· of OBC candidate are available". Nowhere doe the MHRD directive state that I 0 marks i the upper limit for relaxation in the .
qualifying marks for OB candidates. .
The combined judgement of the Supreme ourt judges has nothing to state on the matter of a ten mark relaxation. Where the di cussion of the required reduction in minimum qualifying eligibi lity occurs, it is in the tatements of individual judges, where there is no uniformity. Even .Justice Dhandad' oft-quoted statement, .
which has acqu ired the maximum currency has the following to say: .
174. " ... Of cour c, the extent to which standards of excellence would suffer would vary b in ·titution. A· I mention below, I urge the Govemment to ·ct OB cut off mad<s no lower than 10 mad<s below t.hat of the gcnct·al category. This is onlv a recommendation, however. It mav never .
be (1(/optelf. " .
In the statement o f' .Justices Pasayat and Thakkar quoted above, it is stated that "b wav o(illuslration ... five 1/Wrks grm;e con he exrended to such candidates he/ow the mini///U/11 eligibility marks fixed for general cutegories (?{students." In both these ca c , it i evident that the di cu sion on five or ten marl<S relaxation .
is by way of illustration and it is up to the university to find an institution specific cut-off so as to en ure that adequate number ofOBC students cntet· the univc· ity. .
Finally, apart !Tom being legally untenable, JNU's position is unethical and violative of the very spirit of social ju. tice. "Cut oft", which is a policy p:u·ametet· and must specified in advance based on univer·sity's ow11 .\UIIutar:t or ex ellen e, has been ' ronglv eq uated with "merit", which is a post-factum outcome variable dependmo on th~ compc_titive pel'f'ormance of um·escrvcd category tudent (cro sing the cut-fl) d th .
numbcrofscat · lnaparttularcoursc. 0 an e .
This basic mistake leads to a more fundamental roblem . .
Constitution for the re erved categot·y gets t' d t tl p :-vhet eby the opportunity granted by th .
.
· te o 1e jluctuatmg peronna if.
I tmre.~·erved category rather.
t 1an specified in advance based on unive. 't , J' nee o .
t St Y s own standard of excellence I tl .
:·cq uu·cd pe·ccntagc or OBC scats is not fulfilled I . . n le cunent pt·ocess the Independently on the tandard of I . . . on y becau .e. It doe not treat an one student .. I' , tIC lllllVCJ SJty and the t·em:unmg seat may go to that mll·csct·vcd c,lnc.lll.ate "ho ha · equal or lesset· marl' to a candidate selected in OBC category. It is clearly seen the .
111.
a.d ~~on pro e dol!\ not treat em OBC canc~idate independently on the standards ofthe institution, ratl;er it .
lm~ ht performan. ~to the Ia r elected candtdate in the unre crved category in a particular cour e which s \ anable on th emplrll. I performance of <;tudentc: in a n:u·til'niAr cou·-~~ 1.
. S I p . t ilt Jj\., mUst se( ItS Own Standnrds wh ich mttst be reflected in a pn.:-determined mark, baseci nn .
llS own nnttnn of tand;'\rd!l of ox.ccllcncc. lt must b~ noted that counlit\at~s wl1etl1er unreservcd/OBC/SC/ST must be evaluated on the tandat·ds of the institution and not on the performance of any particular categot·y candidates, which is a cleat· violation of the directive. .
JNUSU urges the honourable EC members to lake nott.of this gross tampering with rules that the administration has indulged in. JNUSU demands that JNU must reverse its bia cd and illegal interpr·etation of the law and the "cut-orr criterion in the current admission process so as to fulfil the .
stipulated quota for one students. .
andeep h ph Pallavi, Md. Mobecn Alam .
1 1.\ L. L T'ic -P .
c._ 1. I.!C '., J USU Jt. Secy. , JNUSU .
.
.
PaRCha - JNU - Letters to Administration - 2008 ID-66030
.
i er 1ty i arguing that in accordance with the directions of Honourable Supreme Court---a i n of I 0 point can be given to an OBC candidate with regard to the un-reserved candidates Thi · mean. that the 8C candidate can gel at the m st 10 marks less than an unre erved .
.., argunH.:nt that relaxation of upto I 0 marks can be provided for an ODC candidate ha come into ~-·u lation. I lowcver, it is purely a popular perception, that has no clear legal sanction, and which the . is circulating so a to serve it O\· n narrow interests. .
ro\ is ion of a ten marks relaxation being th upper limit for 08 candidates does not figure at all in the RD directive. As quoted above, Para X of the MIIRD directive only rates that each CEJ is authorized to fix .
-IT mark for 08 candidates such that it " institution may deem appt·opt'iate for maintaining the tandanls of education and at the same time ensuring that ufficient numbet· of OBC candidate are available". Nowhere doe the MHRD directive state that I 0 marks i the upper limit for relaxation in the .
qualifying marks for OB candidates. .
The combined judgement of the Supreme ourt judges has nothing to state on the matter of a ten mark relaxation. Where the di cussion of the required reduction in minimum qualifying eligibi lity occurs, it is in the tatements of individual judges, where there is no uniformity. Even .Justice Dhandad' oft-quoted statement, .
which has acqu ired the maximum currency has the following to say: .
174. " ... Of cour c, the extent to which standards of excellence would suffer would vary b in ·titution. A· I mention below, I urge the Govemment to ·ct OB cut off mad<s no lower than 10 mad<s below t.hat of the gcnct·al category. This is onlv a recommendation, however. It mav never .
be (1(/optelf. " .
In the statement o f' .Justices Pasayat and Thakkar quoted above, it is stated that "b wav o(illuslration ... five 1/Wrks grm;e con he exrended to such candidates he/ow the mini///U/11 eligibility marks fixed for general cutegories (?{students." In both these ca c , it i evident that the di cu sion on five or ten marl<S relaxation .
is by way of illustration and it is up to the university to find an institution specific cut-off so as to en ure that adequate number ofOBC students cntet· the univc· ity. .
Finally, apart !Tom being legally untenable, JNU's position is unethical and violative of the very spirit of social ju. tice. "Cut oft", which is a policy p:u·ametet· and must specified in advance based on univer·sity's ow11 .\UIIutar:t or ex ellen e, has been ' ronglv eq uated with "merit", which is a post-factum outcome variable dependmo on th~ compc_titive pel'f'ormance of um·escrvcd category tudent (cro sing the cut-fl) d th .
numbcrofscat · lnaparttularcoursc. 0 an e .
This basic mistake leads to a more fundamental roblem . .
Constitution for the re erved categot·y gets t' d t tl p :-vhet eby the opportunity granted by th .
.
· te o 1e jluctuatmg peronna if.
I tmre.~·erved category rather.
t 1an specified in advance based on unive. 't , J' nee o .
t St Y s own standard of excellence I tl .
:·cq uu·cd pe·ccntagc or OBC scats is not fulfilled I . . n le cunent pt·ocess the Independently on the tandard of I . . . on y becau .e. It doe not treat an one student .. I' , tIC lllllVCJ SJty and the t·em:unmg seat may go to that mll·csct·vcd c,lnc.lll.ate "ho ha · equal or lesset· marl' to a candidate selected in OBC category. It is clearly seen the .
111.
a.d ~~on pro e dol!\ not treat em OBC canc~idate independently on the standards ofthe institution, ratl;er it .
lm~ ht performan. ~to the Ia r elected candtdate in the unre crved category in a particular cour e which s \ anable on th emplrll. I performance of <;tudentc: in a n:u·til'niAr cou·-~~ 1.
. S I p . t ilt Jj\., mUst se( ItS Own Standnrds wh ich mttst be reflected in a pn.:-determined mark, baseci nn .
llS own nnttnn of tand;'\rd!l of ox.ccllcncc. lt must b~ noted that counlit\at~s wl1etl1er unreservcd/OBC/SC/ST must be evaluated on the tandat·ds of the institution and not on the performance of any particular categot·y candidates, which is a cleat· violation of the directive. .
JNUSU urges the honourable EC members to lake nott.of this gross tampering with rules that the administration has indulged in. JNUSU demands that JNU must reverse its bia cd and illegal interpr·etation of the law and the "cut-orr criterion in the current admission process so as to fulfil the .
stipulated quota for one students. .
andeep h ph Pallavi, Md. Mobecn Alam .
1 1.\ L. L T'ic -P .
c._ 1. I.!C '., J USU Jt. Secy. , JNUSU .
.
.