Delhi High Court today sought the Centre’s response on a petition seeking setting aside of advertisements issued for appointing directors at various IIMs across the country and asked whether there was a change in the appointment policy.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath issued notice to Ministry of Human Resource & Development asking them to “get instruction on or before February 24 whether there is any change in policy on the appointments of Directors at Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs).”
The court notice was issued on a plea which alleged that the advertisement dated January 12, 2016, issued in respect of the appointment of directors of various IIMs, for the first time demands first class at graduation and post-graduation level to qualify as a candidate for the said post.
- I&B rewrites its letter firing NFDC chief, drops all charges against her
- Recruitment of Medical Officers: Cong govt reverses SAD policy of giving only basic pay to doctors for first 3 years
- Rajasthan HC slams NGO over plea challenging restriction on airing condom ads
- Empower govt to direct IIMs to work as per new Act: Panel
- Delhi High Court questions Centre’s policy exempting autos from having panic buttons
- Hours before IIM Act comes into effect, HRD Ministry appoints IIM-A director, IIM-K chairman
Pritam Singh, who claims to be an academic administrator and Subrat Kumar, a researcher and trainer in the higher education sector, stated in their plea that the government wants to “oust certain candidates and at the same time ensure eligibility for a few”.
“The central government in order to enforce its own agenda/or in order to oust certain candidates from being considered for the post of Director in particular IIM and at the same time to ensure the eligibility of its chosen candidates in certain IIMs,” senior advocate Parag Tripathi and advocate Rajesh Ranjan submitted.
They said the government has laid down “unconstitutional, arbitrary and contradictory” criteria and qualifications for these posts.
The PIL states that the “advertisements were contrary to the established practice and procedure and not based on any conscious policy decision”.
For more updates on education, click here