PaRCha - JNU - General Procedures - 2012 ID-60604

.

~--.......YW,.,..,-y,.. .

.

'r.'I,.T,.... nu -.A D'TD C.flONQ y ;a.:r ---.

JA\VAHARLA-L NEHRU UNlVERSlT\' STUDENTS UNION .

.

NEW OELHl-1 10067 .

.

Phones: 2671 7676,2671 7557,2670 4741 .

.

t .

To .

The Vicc-Ch~tncc\lor, .

19th August 2008 .

.JNU .

Sub: l)clll>llld fot· a written ostion )!\ er b · JNU administration on the s ccific modalities that JNU bas ado ted in fiJ<in the rclaJ<ation of cut-off norms for the OBC candidates in JNU .

Adinissions 2008 .

For the past ten days. JNUSU has been on an indefinite hunger strike against the prevailing anomalies.

Dear Sir,.

in the JNU admissions of 2008. Throughout the admission process, JNUSU bad intervened on several .

<'ccasions to corr.:!ct the errors and anomalies that the administration was making. There are however, .

.

.. .

sti\\ a nutnbcr of issues on"hich the JNU administration remains adamant and answer less. .

Yesterda) ~ \ lU\.08). during the negotiations with the JNU Administration, one of the key issues of .

contention ""s the gross non-fuiC!lt11ent of \2% OI3C quota. JNIJSU argued that this situation is a .

direct result of the wrong application of mandated relaxation of cut-off marks for OBC students as .

.

compared to ~enera\ category students..

Against JNUSU's l\rgumcnts that the university's adntission l)rocess was violative of the \\1HRD .

directive on the implementation of OBC reservation act, the JNl1 Administration held that their .

interpretation was correct and the MHRD directive had numerous fallacies. However, when .

.

JNUSU demanded that the JNll Administration give their position in writing as we\\ as put on .

record the exact process that was adOl)ted in selecting one candidates, the Administration .

refused to do so. They took the plea that since this is a matter of '·interpretation" any decision on .

.

matters of admission can only be resolved in the standing committee of admissions. But the cruciul quc~tion that the administration did not answer ) I!Stcrday is : why are they refusing to put on record and in writin!', the position they \Ja\'1' already taken and acted upon. absolutely .

unilaterally in ~pile of JNUSU.s continuous diffcrcnc<: and counter-logic and violating the MHRD .

You would appreciate that only a written position paper of the uni\'ersity of its own actious that can .

directive?.

form the basis of any meaningful "debate" Now, by seeking the refuge of the standing comtnittee witltont a written statement on its already taken actions, the JNU administration is simply trying to ? End ~~ post) uc/11111 ratiftcation of their unilateral decision rather than honestly resolving the issue of .

Since the choice of "cut-of{'' as well as the "selection criterion for OI3C candidates'' has already been.

·interpretation ''/ ··debate''. .

put into practise for the 2008 admissions by the JNU administration in terms of its own interpretations. it has effectively decided the fate of many OBC students who could not enter JNU as a ~suit. In oth<.!r words, .!NU's arbitrary and unilateral interpretation is no longer in the realm of mere .

'ebate··. as it bas ()\ready been put into practise with reu\ consequences. .

·u d.:nKtnds thnt th.: university administration state before the standing coJnmittee in writing ·h mcding was the decision taken to reject the MHRD directive (Para (X) and (XI) of the office.

I l .

11 .

RAJI\/NA\.

\. : . ··· -.~..~-. .

....._. --· ··--~ ---~\ .

.

.

 

Done