PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2008 ID-22164
.
Cut off point is variable from discipline to discipline and is dependent on the number of seats in each programme of studies. The cut off may not be the same as the qualifying marks which is the same across the disciplines .
However, JNUSU has repeatedly argued that this position on cut-off is not on logically faulty but also legally untenable. Where the university is arguing that there is a lack of clarity in the MHRD directive in terms of defining what is meant by cut-off, a further analysis will show there is no such confusion. Para X and XI of the MHRD directive as defined above are crystal clear in their interpretation of cut-off as the basic qualifying mark, and are without ambiguity on the process of implementation of the law. .
A further perusal of the MHRD directive reads: .
4. While the above clarification is in respect of reservation in admission against the seats for the OBCs, CEIs may also bear in mind that there may be a proportionate increase in the seats for the categories of SCs and STs also, where the extant procedure of selection or cut off marks for these categories shall continue to be in force. .
The cut-off marks for SC/ST students equal their basic qualifying marks for admission to the university. This point when read in conjunction with the use of the term cut-off in para X and XI of the MHRD directive quoted above makes it further clear that there is a clear uniformity [and certainly no ambiguity] in MHRDs understanding of cut-off. There is a consistency in the use of the term cut-off throughout the document to be synonymous with the pre-decided qualifying marks commensurate with the academic standard of the institute. .
Other forums and documents also buttress the MHRDs interpretation, and run contrary to JNUs arbitrary and untenable position. Let us look at the statements of the individual judges in the recent Supreme Court judgment on OBC reservation, where the words cut-off and extent of relaxation occur. For example, even the much-quoted Justice Bhandaris statement, while discussing the concept clearly defines cut-offs as admission thresholds [Para 274 of Justice Bhandaris statement]. This only reinforces the definition of cut-off as provided by MHRD, which the university is duty-bound to follow. .
An even more explicit articulation of where to apply the cut-off can be seen in the statement of Justices Pasayat and Thakkar. Para 139 [3] of their statement reads: .
The Central Government shall examine as to the desirability of fixing a cut off marks in respect of the candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes [OBCs]. By way of illustration it can be indicated that five marks grace can be extended to such candidates below the minimum eligibility marks fixed for general categories of students. This would ensure that quality and merit would not suffer. If any seats remain vacant after adopting such norms they shall be filled up by candidates from general categories. .
Clearly, there is no refuge and space available for the JNU Administration to justify its arbitrary position and interpretation of the cut-off on the basis of any part of the Supreme Court judgment of the statements of individual judges. JNUSU holds that these evidence leave no scope for ambiguity, and demonstrate clearly that the universitys position on defining the cut-off as fluctuating from year to year and based on the performance of general category students of a particular batch, is not only illogical but legally untenable in every way. .
The Clear Illogic Of JNUs Position: An Example .
JNUs mechanism, which is not in accordance with the Act and the MHRD Directive, and violates the basic definitions of categories and very direction and spirit of the Act is also logically incoherent and is creating a serious discrepancy in the admission process. Let us see how this serious discrepancy is built into the faulty definition of cut-off itself, in the following example: .
.
.
PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2008 ID-22164
.
Cut off point is variable from discipline to discipline and is dependent on the number of seats in each programme of studies. The cut off may not be the same as the qualifying marks which is the same across the disciplines .
However, JNUSU has repeatedly argued that this position on cut-off is not on logically faulty but also legally untenable. Where the university is arguing that there is a lack of clarity in the MHRD directive in terms of defining what is meant by cut-off, a further analysis will show there is no such confusion. Para X and XI of the MHRD directive as defined above are crystal clear in their interpretation of cut-off as the basic qualifying mark, and are without ambiguity on the process of implementation of the law. .
A further perusal of the MHRD directive reads: .
4. While the above clarification is in respect of reservation in admission against the seats for the OBCs, CEIs may also bear in mind that there may be a proportionate increase in the seats for the categories of SCs and STs also, where the extant procedure of selection or cut off marks for these categories shall continue to be in force. .
The cut-off marks for SC/ST students equal their basic qualifying marks for admission to the university. This point when read in conjunction with the use of the term cut-off in para X and XI of the MHRD directive quoted above makes it further clear that there is a clear uniformity [and certainly no ambiguity] in MHRDs understanding of cut-off. There is a consistency in the use of the term cut-off throughout the document to be synonymous with the pre-decided qualifying marks commensurate with the academic standard of the institute. .
Other forums and documents also buttress the MHRDs interpretation, and run contrary to JNUs arbitrary and untenable position. Let us look at the statements of the individual judges in the recent Supreme Court judgment on OBC reservation, where the words cut-off and extent of relaxation occur. For example, even the much-quoted Justice Bhandaris statement, while discussing the concept clearly defines cut-offs as admission thresholds [Para 274 of Justice Bhandaris statement]. This only reinforces the definition of cut-off as provided by MHRD, which the university is duty-bound to follow. .
An even more explicit articulation of where to apply the cut-off can be seen in the statement of Justices Pasayat and Thakkar. Para 139 [3] of their statement reads: .
The Central Government shall examine as to the desirability of fixing a cut off marks in respect of the candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes [OBCs]. By way of illustration it can be indicated that five marks grace can be extended to such candidates below the minimum eligibility marks fixed for general categories of students. This would ensure that quality and merit would not suffer. If any seats remain vacant after adopting such norms they shall be filled up by candidates from general categories. .
Clearly, there is no refuge and space available for the JNU Administration to justify its arbitrary position and interpretation of the cut-off on the basis of any part of the Supreme Court judgment of the statements of individual judges. JNUSU holds that these evidence leave no scope for ambiguity, and demonstrate clearly that the universitys position on defining the cut-off as fluctuating from year to year and based on the performance of general category students of a particular batch, is not only illogical but legally untenable in every way. .
The Clear Illogic Of JNUs Position: An Example .
JNUs mechanism, which is not in accordance with the Act and the MHRD Directive, and violates the basic definitions of categories and very direction and spirit of the Act is also logically incoherent and is creating a serious discrepancy in the admission process. Let us see how this serious discrepancy is built into the faulty definition of cut-off itself, in the following example: .
.
.