PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2012 ID-52923
.
Dr. Udit Raj T-22,Atu/GroveRoad, NewDelhi-110001 .
Tel: 23354841, Telefax: 23354842.
Chairman, AllIndia Confederation ofSC/ST0rgani5ations .
Email: dr.uditraj@gmailcom.
NationalPresident, !~dianJustice ~arty . .
FormerMember, Nat1ona/Integrat1on Counctl (Go vi. ofIndia) Press Release.
..
Now Reservation for General Category'tJr_.t.] ~tileJti!Htilintttmt4J. mnttta~ tttrtt f,j, ttli; 11 til .
New Delhi, 2nd June, 2011. 'ration ofSC/ST Organisations r~leased the facts and.
Dr. Udit Raj, National Chairman, All India Com0edE-.
figures aboutthe de facto reservation policy adopted by prf,mier institutions like Delhi Uni 'ersity, liT, Jawahar LaI Nehru University and Mass Communication. Accor ~ing to their reservation policy, now the general category will get 51°/o reservation nd the OBC/SC/ST have t:> bf'!' contended with 490fo reservation. .
f~clared just last week which violatea the reservationDr. Udit Raj said tl;at the IIT-JEE Result was c: .
policy. The total seats ofOBC were 2545, out of whic'· 1540 competed in general merit. Ev .. ~if ~:~ley qualified with general merit, these 1540 candid;:~tt~s were adjusted in quota. Similarly, 122 SC candidates qualified in .
general merit, were adjusted in reserve category.It o;; ~rrtportant to mention that the total se;~ts of SC were 1950. The seats of ST were 645 and out of which, .33 competed in general merit but ;.Jere counted in .
reserved category. .
Dr. Udit Raj condemned the prejudiced behav or of these institutions. He questioned the rationality and academic standards of professors and administrators of these institutions. The various j'ldgments of Supreme Court like Indira Sahini vjs Govt. of India ( 992), Ritesh R. Sah v/s Dr. Y. L. Yamul (1996), R. K. Sabbarwal v/s State of Punjab (1995), Govt. of India 1'/s Satya Prakash (2006) have clearly laid down that .
l merit1 will not be adjusted against the quota. In the OBC, SC and ST candidates, if they qualify in gen~1a.
other wards, ifthe reserved category candidates are ot availing relaxations and concessions then in that case they should be treated as general candidates or v..il l be considered in general merit. Delhi High Court, in .
case of Dr. Jagbir Singh v js AIIMS has also laid similar guidelines vide dated 19.8.2010. The Articles 15 and 16 ofIndian Constitution clearly say that the socially aml educationally backward will have additional benefits in addition to normal opportunities available to ever\'One. But these institutions are flagrantly violrtting these fundamental rights. Dr. Udit Raj sa·d that Delhi University in 2010 has wrongly t:onverted 5400 seats .
·~alleges o DU show h.:~t only 3158 out oftotal seats .
of OBC in to general,,; t:egory. The da·a .:oii ~cted of30 .
The filets and figures ·1f othe!' colle·J~S of Delhi University could not be known but.
7059 CG.Jl1:1 g~t adrni~sion_ .
from Qlhcr sources jncluding media, the totallnss of (JIJC seCltS works out to be above 5400. The Supreme .
.
Court in case of Ashok Kumar Thakur vide dated 10.4. ;~008 has not lard down tne principle or difference of 100/o cut of marks for the OBC In admission. Dalbir f..lhand<~ri was one of the five Judges Bench who had advised that difference between cut off of marks ofger era I clltegory and OBC should not be more than 10%. .
At the same time he also held that each institute sho·: d set up its own committee to look into it that the .
difference of cut of marks for admission is not substantial. These institutions have not set up committees rather ha\le appliec blindly the advisory part ofjudgn~ent and nQt the real judgment. This was not the issue .
before the bench, however, unfortunately, a recomme;,:,:tion by a single judges has been wrongly interpreted and applied. The loss ofOBC seats of311 was in Jawallar LaI Nehru University in 2010 acad~micsession. The .
JNU also misinterpreted the judgments and that waschallenged in Delhi High Court. The court vide dated .
7.9.2010 in case ofApurva allowed two OBC student· ·~o get admission in JNU. The Indian Institution of Mass Communication is not behind in the race ofprejudices. A RTI application was filed asking on which basis the OBC/SC/ST stud~nts who get equal or more than cut ofmuks of general category (i.e. 55 in Hindi Journalism) denied to give admission in General Category (i.e. ( 1) ;n OBC: Neeraj .
amsh and Jitendr i:1 !'llahala-56 andSingh 68, Jaishankar-65, Sandeep-64, Rajesh-62, Ai<hi!-58, Nand La I, .
others candidates get ss mark (2) in SC Chandrakant"a-· i .. OhiJrmendra-67, Himanshu-66, l<amlesh-56 has .
been denied admission in general category. The Inst;tutf vide dated 26.5.2011 replied that the admissions are done on the basis of merit list prepared for each category separately as per their opi:ion-given in the application form ofentrance examinations. Dalit candidate, Chandrakanta, was unfortun;:Jtely given admission in reserved category otherwise she should have been one of the toppers. Thus t!1ere is reservation for . . . .upper castes. 'II Adm1ss1on) Act 2006.
Dr. Udit Raj informed that the Central Education\11 Institutions (Reservation was made to give reservatior to the OBC students. Thousands of crores of funds were allocated to create infrastructure and seats so that the OBC candidates could get reservation in r:.!served category and the .
interest ofgeneral category is not ha111pered. Instead ofOBC students, now the so called upper caste st_udents .
are availing these facilities and very little is going l:c the needy. IJilill it not ha~per the cause o~ un~ty and .
integrity ofthe country ifvast majority of people are c"enied their fundamental ngh~s_? Natural~y, rt ~rll have bearing and the country had paid heaviest price ;;ince ages. The SC/Sl /OBC are c1t1zen of tin:.; natton ordy .
and if they are not brought at par with others, there will be always threat to the peace and harmony. We havl! started contacting Members of Pnrli<Jmcnt to take 11p this issue in coming Parliament session. At t-he .
same time, J e agitations will be launched from nf!Xt week onwar(ISagainst the prejudiced and discrimin<ltory .
policy of these in.:.titutior.s. (Kamlesh Kumar), Menia Incharge .
.
PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2012 ID-52923
.
Dr. Udit Raj T-22,Atu/GroveRoad, NewDelhi-110001 .
Tel: 23354841, Telefax: 23354842.
Chairman, AllIndia Confederation ofSC/ST0rgani5ations .
Email: dr.uditraj@gmailcom.
NationalPresident, !~dianJustice ~arty . .
FormerMember, Nat1ona/Integrat1on Counctl (Go vi. ofIndia) Press Release.
..
Now Reservation for General Category'tJr_.t.] ~tileJti!Htilintttmt4J. mnttta~ tttrtt f,j, ttli; 11 til .
New Delhi, 2nd June, 2011. 'ration ofSC/ST Organisations r~leased the facts and.
Dr. Udit Raj, National Chairman, All India Com0edE-.
figures aboutthe de facto reservation policy adopted by prf,mier institutions like Delhi Uni 'ersity, liT, Jawahar LaI Nehru University and Mass Communication. Accor ~ing to their reservation policy, now the general category will get 51°/o reservation nd the OBC/SC/ST have t:> bf'!' contended with 490fo reservation. .
f~clared just last week which violatea the reservationDr. Udit Raj said tl;at the IIT-JEE Result was c: .
policy. The total seats ofOBC were 2545, out of whic'· 1540 competed in general merit. Ev .. ~if ~:~ley qualified with general merit, these 1540 candid;:~tt~s were adjusted in quota. Similarly, 122 SC candidates qualified in .
general merit, were adjusted in reserve category.It o;; ~rrtportant to mention that the total se;~ts of SC were 1950. The seats of ST were 645 and out of which, .33 competed in general merit but ;.Jere counted in .
reserved category. .
Dr. Udit Raj condemned the prejudiced behav or of these institutions. He questioned the rationality and academic standards of professors and administrators of these institutions. The various j'ldgments of Supreme Court like Indira Sahini vjs Govt. of India ( 992), Ritesh R. Sah v/s Dr. Y. L. Yamul (1996), R. K. Sabbarwal v/s State of Punjab (1995), Govt. of India 1'/s Satya Prakash (2006) have clearly laid down that .
l merit1 will not be adjusted against the quota. In the OBC, SC and ST candidates, if they qualify in gen~1a.
other wards, ifthe reserved category candidates are ot availing relaxations and concessions then in that case they should be treated as general candidates or v..il l be considered in general merit. Delhi High Court, in .
case of Dr. Jagbir Singh v js AIIMS has also laid similar guidelines vide dated 19.8.2010. The Articles 15 and 16 ofIndian Constitution clearly say that the socially aml educationally backward will have additional benefits in addition to normal opportunities available to ever\'One. But these institutions are flagrantly violrtting these fundamental rights. Dr. Udit Raj sa·d that Delhi University in 2010 has wrongly t:onverted 5400 seats .
·~alleges o DU show h.:~t only 3158 out oftotal seats .
of OBC in to general,,; t:egory. The da·a .:oii ~cted of30 .
The filets and figures ·1f othe!' colle·J~S of Delhi University could not be known but.
7059 CG.Jl1:1 g~t adrni~sion_ .
from Qlhcr sources jncluding media, the totallnss of (JIJC seCltS works out to be above 5400. The Supreme .
.
Court in case of Ashok Kumar Thakur vide dated 10.4. ;~008 has not lard down tne principle or difference of 100/o cut of marks for the OBC In admission. Dalbir f..lhand<~ri was one of the five Judges Bench who had advised that difference between cut off of marks ofger era I clltegory and OBC should not be more than 10%. .
At the same time he also held that each institute sho·: d set up its own committee to look into it that the .
difference of cut of marks for admission is not substantial. These institutions have not set up committees rather ha\le appliec blindly the advisory part ofjudgn~ent and nQt the real judgment. This was not the issue .
before the bench, however, unfortunately, a recomme;,:,:tion by a single judges has been wrongly interpreted and applied. The loss ofOBC seats of311 was in Jawallar LaI Nehru University in 2010 acad~micsession. The .
JNU also misinterpreted the judgments and that waschallenged in Delhi High Court. The court vide dated .
7.9.2010 in case ofApurva allowed two OBC student· ·~o get admission in JNU. The Indian Institution of Mass Communication is not behind in the race ofprejudices. A RTI application was filed asking on which basis the OBC/SC/ST stud~nts who get equal or more than cut ofmuks of general category (i.e. 55 in Hindi Journalism) denied to give admission in General Category (i.e. ( 1) ;n OBC: Neeraj .
amsh and Jitendr i:1 !'llahala-56 andSingh 68, Jaishankar-65, Sandeep-64, Rajesh-62, Ai<hi!-58, Nand La I, .
others candidates get ss mark (2) in SC Chandrakant"a-· i .. OhiJrmendra-67, Himanshu-66, l<amlesh-56 has .
been denied admission in general category. The Inst;tutf vide dated 26.5.2011 replied that the admissions are done on the basis of merit list prepared for each category separately as per their opi:ion-given in the application form ofentrance examinations. Dalit candidate, Chandrakanta, was unfortun;:Jtely given admission in reserved category otherwise she should have been one of the toppers. Thus t!1ere is reservation for . . . .upper castes. 'II Adm1ss1on) Act 2006.
Dr. Udit Raj informed that the Central Education\11 Institutions (Reservation was made to give reservatior to the OBC students. Thousands of crores of funds were allocated to create infrastructure and seats so that the OBC candidates could get reservation in r:.!served category and the .
interest ofgeneral category is not ha111pered. Instead ofOBC students, now the so called upper caste st_udents .
are availing these facilities and very little is going l:c the needy. IJilill it not ha~per the cause o~ un~ty and .
integrity ofthe country ifvast majority of people are c"enied their fundamental ngh~s_? Natural~y, rt ~rll have bearing and the country had paid heaviest price ;;ince ages. The SC/Sl /OBC are c1t1zen of tin:.; natton ordy .
and if they are not brought at par with others, there will be always threat to the peace and harmony. We havl! started contacting Members of Pnrli<Jmcnt to take 11p this issue in coming Parliament session. At t-he .
same time, J e agitations will be launched from nf!Xt week onwar(ISagainst the prejudiced and discrimin<ltory .
policy of these in.:.titutior.s. (Kamlesh Kumar), Menia Incharge .
.