PaRCha - JNU - SFI - 2010 ID-69021
.
UNITE AGAINST THE REGRESSIVE CHANGES IN ADMISSION PROCESS IN NU .
Ensure 3% Reservation for PH students!! Reverse the decision of"H orizontal" reservation!! .
Rally behind the stmggle for a progressive and transparent admission system!! .
The JNUSU must answer for its inactions and opacity in the entire process!! .
Friends, 30/ 07/ 08 .
The SF! condemns in strongest possible words, the manner in which JNU's socially sensitive admission policy has been tampered with by the administration in dus year's admissions. Not only have the required proportion ofcandidates from various deprived and marginalized sections not taken, d1crc is a complete opacity about how these drastic changes have been done in the criteria for admissions in JNU. .
Non Fulfillment of PH Ouota: Ensuring 3% PH quota is constitutionally binding on every educational institution in our country. In a shocking and shameful manner this reservation has been completely abolished in the university. As a result there has been a sharp fall in d1c number of PH students wlum have been admitted to the university, the number being nil for many centres. Supposedly the rationale for this move has been that d1crc can be no funhcr reservation after 22.5% SC/ ST and 27% OBC reservation. Such an understanding however, is completely wrong and actually amo unts to violation of the Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No 3984 of2007. Clause 12 of the judgment clearly says, 'whereas a reasonable reservation \vithin the meaning of Article 16 of the constitution of India should not ordinarily exist, 50% as has been held by tllis court in lndra Sawhney vs The Union of India, reservation for women or handicapped persons would not come within tlte purview therof.' . The SFI will not accept any change in this formula and we demand that d1c flawed procedure of so-called "horizontal" reservation, which can not be called reservation by any means, be immediately corrected to give PH students their due representation in JNU. .
Non Fulfillment of OBC Quota: There is large-scale confusion over the actual reservation which has been provided to the OBC students tlus year. There is no consistency in the lists of selected candidates which have been published for different centres. li>Lany of the centres have very few or even no OBC student in the selected list. In many centres the OBC students who have qualified in the unreserved category have also been added in the OBC quota. There also reports that JNU has used the arbitrary method of fixing the cut-off of 10 marks less than the unreserved category (as a result of which there are no 0 BC students in many centres) for the OBC students, which is not a part of the Supreme Co urt Judgment this year. TI1c SFI demands that the administration should immediately make public the criteria which it has used in dctcrmiJung the cli.[,>ibility for OBC students in the university. .
Lack of clarity about waiting list: After a long period of time waiting lists have been issued for admissions in JNU. However there is absolutely no clarity on why this mcd10d has been brought back suddenly without any prior informacion. In a university like ours, where rill last year d1c offer for admissions was far greater than the stipulated intake, the shift to a waiting list based method appears to be a backdoor route to scat cuts. T his can be explained by a simple example. Till last year a second list was released for any centre if the number of admissions in d1c first list was less than 50% of the scats offered. Let us assume that a centre offered 100 scats in the first list. Then a second list would have come if there were less than 50 admissions in the first list. But usually the number of admissions was always more than the 50% mark and d1crc was always a possibility of more students getting admissions because of the higher offer. Now after the waiting list system, the number of offered scats has been reduced by half in all the centres. For example in a centre like CESP where the offer was always around 110-115, dus years first list has only 62 names. Now if d1c first list is filled, then tl1crc is no need for d1c LuUvcrsity to come up with a second list. Simplistically speaking, this has effectively meant that there has been a seat cut in the university which has broug ht down the number of seats from a higher figure of offered seats till last year to intakes, which used to serve as some kind of a lower bound for the number of seats. What is more shocking is no waiting list has been issued in some centres like CIL (for the MA Urdu Course). Similarly there are no waiting lists for the BA programme in foreign languages, while the number of offers has been drastically reduced. The offer for BA Russian has been almost reduced by halftllis year. .
There have been other serious malpractices in the admission procedure as well. In many centres the candidates who were selected for M.Phil interviews were infon ned about tllis only a couple ofdays before the interviews through telegrams and even phone calls! Majority of them were OBC students. .
Such tampering and malpractices have never been seen in the admission process in our university. T his year's admissions were all the more imponant because OBC reservation has been implemented for the first time in our university. If 27% OBC reservation and 54% scat increase would have been properly implemented in the university, there would have been a large-scale expansion of scats in the university, majority of which would have gone to the deprived section students. But what has transpired is totally opposite of what the JNU student movement was demanding. Not only has d1c 27% OBC reservation and 54% scat increase process been scuttled conveniently, but we arc also seeing a denial of the existing reservations for PH .
.
PaRCha - JNU - SFI - 2010 ID-69021
.
UNITE AGAINST THE REGRESSIVE CHANGES IN ADMISSION PROCESS IN NU .
Ensure 3% Reservation for PH students!! Reverse the decision of"H orizontal" reservation!! .
Rally behind the stmggle for a progressive and transparent admission system!! .
The JNUSU must answer for its inactions and opacity in the entire process!! .
Friends, 30/ 07/ 08 .
The SF! condemns in strongest possible words, the manner in which JNU's socially sensitive admission policy has been tampered with by the administration in dus year's admissions. Not only have the required proportion ofcandidates from various deprived and marginalized sections not taken, d1crc is a complete opacity about how these drastic changes have been done in the criteria for admissions in JNU. .
Non Fulfillment of PH Ouota: Ensuring 3% PH quota is constitutionally binding on every educational institution in our country. In a shocking and shameful manner this reservation has been completely abolished in the university. As a result there has been a sharp fall in d1c number of PH students wlum have been admitted to the university, the number being nil for many centres. Supposedly the rationale for this move has been that d1crc can be no funhcr reservation after 22.5% SC/ ST and 27% OBC reservation. Such an understanding however, is completely wrong and actually amo unts to violation of the Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No 3984 of2007. Clause 12 of the judgment clearly says, 'whereas a reasonable reservation \vithin the meaning of Article 16 of the constitution of India should not ordinarily exist, 50% as has been held by tllis court in lndra Sawhney vs The Union of India, reservation for women or handicapped persons would not come within tlte purview therof.' . The SFI will not accept any change in this formula and we demand that d1c flawed procedure of so-called "horizontal" reservation, which can not be called reservation by any means, be immediately corrected to give PH students their due representation in JNU. .
Non Fulfillment of OBC Quota: There is large-scale confusion over the actual reservation which has been provided to the OBC students tlus year. There is no consistency in the lists of selected candidates which have been published for different centres. li>Lany of the centres have very few or even no OBC student in the selected list. In many centres the OBC students who have qualified in the unreserved category have also been added in the OBC quota. There also reports that JNU has used the arbitrary method of fixing the cut-off of 10 marks less than the unreserved category (as a result of which there are no 0 BC students in many centres) for the OBC students, which is not a part of the Supreme Co urt Judgment this year. TI1c SFI demands that the administration should immediately make public the criteria which it has used in dctcrmiJung the cli.[,>ibility for OBC students in the university. .
Lack of clarity about waiting list: After a long period of time waiting lists have been issued for admissions in JNU. However there is absolutely no clarity on why this mcd10d has been brought back suddenly without any prior informacion. In a university like ours, where rill last year d1c offer for admissions was far greater than the stipulated intake, the shift to a waiting list based method appears to be a backdoor route to scat cuts. T his can be explained by a simple example. Till last year a second list was released for any centre if the number of admissions in d1c first list was less than 50% of the scats offered. Let us assume that a centre offered 100 scats in the first list. Then a second list would have come if there were less than 50 admissions in the first list. But usually the number of admissions was always more than the 50% mark and d1crc was always a possibility of more students getting admissions because of the higher offer. Now after the waiting list system, the number of offered scats has been reduced by half in all the centres. For example in a centre like CESP where the offer was always around 110-115, dus years first list has only 62 names. Now if d1c first list is filled, then tl1crc is no need for d1c LuUvcrsity to come up with a second list. Simplistically speaking, this has effectively meant that there has been a seat cut in the university which has broug ht down the number of seats from a higher figure of offered seats till last year to intakes, which used to serve as some kind of a lower bound for the number of seats. What is more shocking is no waiting list has been issued in some centres like CIL (for the MA Urdu Course). Similarly there are no waiting lists for the BA programme in foreign languages, while the number of offers has been drastically reduced. The offer for BA Russian has been almost reduced by halftllis year. .
There have been other serious malpractices in the admission procedure as well. In many centres the candidates who were selected for M.Phil interviews were infon ned about tllis only a couple ofdays before the interviews through telegrams and even phone calls! Majority of them were OBC students. .
Such tampering and malpractices have never been seen in the admission process in our university. T his year's admissions were all the more imponant because OBC reservation has been implemented for the first time in our university. If 27% OBC reservation and 54% scat increase would have been properly implemented in the university, there would have been a large-scale expansion of scats in the university, majority of which would have gone to the deprived section students. But what has transpired is totally opposite of what the JNU student movement was demanding. Not only has d1c 27% OBC reservation and 54% scat increase process been scuttled conveniently, but we arc also seeing a denial of the existing reservations for PH .
.