PaRCha - JNU - Letters to Administration - 2008 ID-65939
.
.
.
_-·enable position . Let us look at the statements of the individual judges in the recent Supreme Court judgment on .
-3C reservation, where the words cut-off and extent of relaxat1on occur. F le even the much-quoted Justice Bhandari's statement, while discussing the conce~t .
c~ar~xad:~n~s 'cut-offs' as "admission thresholds" Para 274 of J.ustice Bh~nda~i's .statement . ThiS only :einforces the definition of cut-off as provided by MHRD, wh1ch the un1vers1ty 1s 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 ~ff ~arks in ~es~ect of the candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes [OBCs]. By way of l.ll~stratlo~· It·~~-~ b~~~~~c~~=~dt~~~.
1.
five marks grace can be extended to such candidates below the m1mmum e 191 1 Y general categories of students. This would ensure that quality an~ merit would not suffer. ~~ a~y seats remain vacant after adopting such norms they shall be filled up by candidates from general categones. h t th · 'ty's position .
I.
JNUSU holds that these evidence leave no scope for ambiguity, and demonstrate clear Y t a e un1vers1 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. .
n spite of the fact that JNUSU has repeatedly pointed out and argued this matter in numerous representations, JNU administration has provided no explanation for this willful violation of MHRD guidelines. Non-fulfillment of OBC seats last year was a direct outcome of this willful anomaly that led to non-availability of "eligible" OBC candidates in many courses. Such deliberate subversion of reservation process is not acceptable and must be corrected without delay. .
On the Prospectus Fee-Hike and Moves of commercialization of services: .
The administration has increased the cost of JNU admission prospectus claiming that it does not have funds for conducting the JNU Entrance Exam. However, according to the administration's own records, the money it collected through selling of the prospectus even last year was far above the amount it required for conducting the Entrance Exam . Therefore, this argument of "shortage of funds" does not hold any water. The BPL waiver is simply tokenism for it amounted to 100% subsidy for 0% applicants; it cannot compensate or counterbalance the damage that the increased prospectus fees have inflicted. Firstly, the fees hike has damaged the basic ethical premise that universities or admission processes cannot be run like commercial and profiteering ventures. Secondly, through higher prices, it has discouraged and actually squeezed out those in the social ladder who are struggling against odds to begin to equip themselves with an education, and aspire to come for higher education. Therefore, we would like to .
submit: that our concerns should not be reduced to a "struggle for Rs 80/-". What we are struggling to retain is the basic ethics on which a higher education institution like JNU will function: will JNU continue to be socially-inclusive and accessible, or will JNU be run like a commercial enterprise based on crude considerations of amassing profit? .
Similarly all attempts at commercialisation of services as reflected through installation of electric meters in new Koyena hostel must be done away with. .
'!Ve believe that a fees hike and commercialisation moves will go against JNU's long established traditions of opening 1ts doors to students from all sections of society, including poor students and students from deprived backgrounds. .
Closing down of all forms of dialogue: .
The committees headed by Rupamanjari Gh h d Ad 't M · .
all admission related anaomlies and the im Ts an . ' ya ukherJ.ee wh~ch were set up last year to look into student union inspite of a written agreeme~tet~~~~atlo; of reservations did not consider the viewpoint of the and reports. IS e ect. Nor have we been informed about their proceedings .
Similarly, in February the JNU administration promised the s . . rssue of prospe.ctus pricing, taking into consideration the . ettrfng up of a hrgh-powered committee to look into the has n.ot come. Into being. In doing so, the administrat~~w~ o students .and teachers. However, such a committee ~romlses be rt with respect to anomalies in admissions n IS on_ce agam reneging on their commitments and .
IS necessary for the Academic Council to raise the . or the Issue of prospectus pricing. JNUSU believes it .
the JNU administration on these issues which are fse Issues for discu~sion and demand accounatbility from .
o concern for the entire JNU community as a whole. .
.. .
.) .
.
PaRCha - JNU - Letters to Administration - 2008 ID-65939
.
.
.
_-·enable position . Let us look at the statements of the individual judges in the recent Supreme Court judgment on .
-3C reservation, where the words cut-off and extent of relaxat1on occur. F le even the much-quoted Justice Bhandari's statement, while discussing the conce~t .
c~ar~xad:~n~s 'cut-offs' as "admission thresholds" Para 274 of J.ustice Bh~nda~i's .statement . ThiS only :einforces the definition of cut-off as provided by MHRD, wh1ch the un1vers1ty 1s 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 ~ff ~arks in ~es~ect of the candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes [OBCs]. By way of l.ll~stratlo~· It·~~-~ b~~~~~c~~=~dt~~~.
1.
five marks grace can be extended to such candidates below the m1mmum e 191 1 Y general categories of students. This would ensure that quality an~ merit would not suffer. ~~ a~y seats remain vacant after adopting such norms they shall be filled up by candidates from general categones. h t th · 'ty's position .
I.
JNUSU holds that these evidence leave no scope for ambiguity, and demonstrate clear Y t a e un1vers1 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. .
n spite of the fact that JNUSU has repeatedly pointed out and argued this matter in numerous representations, JNU administration has provided no explanation for this willful violation of MHRD guidelines. Non-fulfillment of OBC seats last year was a direct outcome of this willful anomaly that led to non-availability of "eligible" OBC candidates in many courses. Such deliberate subversion of reservation process is not acceptable and must be corrected without delay. .
On the Prospectus Fee-Hike and Moves of commercialization of services: .
The administration has increased the cost of JNU admission prospectus claiming that it does not have funds for conducting the JNU Entrance Exam. However, according to the administration's own records, the money it collected through selling of the prospectus even last year was far above the amount it required for conducting the Entrance Exam . Therefore, this argument of "shortage of funds" does not hold any water. The BPL waiver is simply tokenism for it amounted to 100% subsidy for 0% applicants; it cannot compensate or counterbalance the damage that the increased prospectus fees have inflicted. Firstly, the fees hike has damaged the basic ethical premise that universities or admission processes cannot be run like commercial and profiteering ventures. Secondly, through higher prices, it has discouraged and actually squeezed out those in the social ladder who are struggling against odds to begin to equip themselves with an education, and aspire to come for higher education. Therefore, we would like to .
submit: that our concerns should not be reduced to a "struggle for Rs 80/-". What we are struggling to retain is the basic ethics on which a higher education institution like JNU will function: will JNU continue to be socially-inclusive and accessible, or will JNU be run like a commercial enterprise based on crude considerations of amassing profit? .
Similarly all attempts at commercialisation of services as reflected through installation of electric meters in new Koyena hostel must be done away with. .
'!Ve believe that a fees hike and commercialisation moves will go against JNU's long established traditions of opening 1ts doors to students from all sections of society, including poor students and students from deprived backgrounds. .
Closing down of all forms of dialogue: .
The committees headed by Rupamanjari Gh h d Ad 't M · .
all admission related anaomlies and the im Ts an . ' ya ukherJ.ee wh~ch were set up last year to look into student union inspite of a written agreeme~tet~~~~atlo; of reservations did not consider the viewpoint of the and reports. IS e ect. Nor have we been informed about their proceedings .
Similarly, in February the JNU administration promised the s . . rssue of prospe.ctus pricing, taking into consideration the . ettrfng up of a hrgh-powered committee to look into the has n.ot come. Into being. In doing so, the administrat~~w~ o students .and teachers. However, such a committee ~romlses be rt with respect to anomalies in admissions n IS on_ce agam reneging on their commitments and .
IS necessary for the Academic Council to raise the . or the Issue of prospectus pricing. JNUSU believes it .
the JNU administration on these issues which are fse Issues for discu~sion and demand accounatbility from .
o concern for the entire JNU community as a whole. .
.. .
.) .
.